Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedJudicial Review Application by Notice of Motion dated 6th May 2024 (Nyeri)

Nthiga v County Government of Embu County & 2 others (Judicial Review Cause E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 362 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
13 February 2025
OMOnesmus N Makau
838 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment and Labour Relations Court ordered Embu County public officers to pay a Kshs.2.4 million judgment debt, confirming mandamus as the remedy when governments refuse to pay decrees.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a judicial review application by Notice of Motion dated 6th May 2024, brought under Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Fair Administrative Actions Act, seeking an order of mandamus compelling cited public officers of the County Government of Embu and the County Public Service Board, Embu County to pay Kshs.2,398,833.30 as decreed in Nyeri ELRC Petition 15 of 2017. The applicant had obtained judgment on 24th February 2020 for Kshs.2,180,803 plus costs and interest, and a Certificate of Order against the Government was issued on 12th February 2024. The debt remained unpaid and execution could not issue against the Government. The respondents were served but failed to enter appearance or oppose the application. Relying on Republic v Kenya National Examinations Council ex-parte Gathenji, the court held that mandamus compels public officers to perform public duties imposed by statute where failure prejudices a party entitled to performance. Finding the officers had a public duty to pay the decretal sum and that the applicant's allegations were uncontroverted, the court granted the mandamus compelling the cited officers to settle the decretal sum, awarded the applicant costs of the application plus interest at court rates from the date of filing, and entered judgment as prayed in prayers (a) and (c) of the Amended Notice of Motion. The judgment was delivered via Teams with the parties' consent, waiving Rule 28(3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the order of mandamus should issue as prayed.
  2. 2.Whether costs should be granted.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether mandamus should issue to compel the cited public officers to settle the judgment debt

Holding

Mandamus issued because the officers had a public duty to pay the decretal sum and the allegations of non-payment were uncontroverted, the respondents having failed to enter appearance.

Reasoning

The applicant obtained judgment in Nyeri ELRC Petition 15 of 2017 on 24th February 2020 and a Certificate of Order against the Government issued on 12th February 2024 for Kshs.2,393,883.30. Execution cannot issue against the Government, so mandamus is the proper remedy against the officers. The respondents were served but never appeared or controverted the claim, so the court granted mandamus compelling them to settle the debt, plus costs and interest.

p. 3
02

Whether costs should be granted

Holding

Costs awarded to the applicant with interest at court rates from the date of filing.

Reasoning

Since the application was unopposed and the applicant succeeded in obtaining the writ of mandamus, the court awarded costs of the application together with interest at court rates running from the date of filing the suit, as prayed in prayer (c) of the Amended Notice of Motion.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Mandamus compels a public officer or public body to perform a public duty imposed by statute where failure to perform prejudices a party with a legal right to expect performance.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Order of mandamus directed at the public officers cited in the Amended Notice of Motion dated 7th August 2024, compelling them to settle the sum ordered in Nyeri ELRC Petition 15 of 2017
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the applicant plus interest at court rates from the date of filing the suit

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

OM
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and sections 7(1)(a), 10(1) and 11(1)(f) and (i) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

Consequently, I enter judgment for the applicant as prayed in (a) and (c) of the Amended Notice of Motion.
p. 3Final orders - mandamus granted
I have found that the applicant has laid before the court a good basis upon which to grant the writ of mandamus against the respondents.
p. 3Court's conclusion on entitlement to mandamus
The oficers of the County Government and the Board sued have a public duty to pay the decretal sum plus costs to the applicant.
p. 3Public duty to satisfy decree

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The decretal sum is stated inconsistently: the motion seeks Kshs.2,398,833.30, the certificate of order is recorded as Kshs.2,393,883.30, and the operative mandamus order refers to Kshs.2,398,883.30.

minor

The judgment does not name the ex-parte applicant in the text reproduced, and the respondents are described both as entities and as officers cited therein.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nthiga v County Government of Embu County & 2 others (Judicial Review Cause E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 362 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Application by Notice of Motion dated 6th May 2024 (Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/362/eng@2025-02-13

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.