Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedChamber Summons dated 30th June 2025 (Judicial Review)· [2025] KEELRC 2583 (KLR)

Atandi v County Government of Kisii (Judicial Review E013 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2583 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (not expressly named in the judgment)
29 September 2025
JGJacob Gakeri
1,283 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court allowed a former Kisii County Ward Administrator to pursue judicial review to recover over Kshs. 1.2 million in unpaid salary and allowances.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex parte applicant, a former Ward Administrator employed by the Kisii County Government on permanent and pensionable terms, sought leave by Chamber Summons dated 30th June 2025 to apply for judicial review orders of mandamus compelling the respondents to pay salary and allowances arrears of Kshs.1,284,960.00, and prohibition against further withholding of his salaries and allowances. He contended that although he was promoted in August 2022 to Assistant Director Administration, Job Group N, his salary was never adjusted, violating his labour rights. The respondents opposed, asserting through a Replying Affidavit of Earnest Osoro Rachami that the 2022 promotions were irregular, were not effected, a petition for removal of the Public Service Board members was filed, and a fresh promotion exercise was ongoing; they also alleged non-disclosure of material facts, absence of a demand letter, and abuse of process. The court framed a single issue: whether the applicant was entitled to leave. It found the applicant's promotion and deployment letters on record, while the respondents tendered no verifiable evidence, no timeline for the fresh exercise, and no evidence of an investigation under Section 75 of the County Governments Act. The court held that the contention that mandamus requires prior ascertainment of facts could not justify refusing leave, since evidence could be adduced at the substantive motion. Leave to institute judicial review proceedings was accordingly granted, with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave to apply for judicial review (mandamus and prohibition) should be granted where the respondent alleges non-disclosure of material facts and irregular promotions

Holding

Leave was granted. The applicant demonstrated a prima facie case: promotion letters with enhanced salary were on record, and the respondents tendered no verifiable evidence to substantiate their averments of irregularity or of a statutory process under Section 75 of the County Governments Act.

Reasoning

The court weighed the applicant's documentary evidence (promotion, redesignation, deployment letters) against the respondents' bare assertions. The respondents failed to provide a timeline for the ongoing re-promotion exercise or evidence of an investigation under Section 75 of the County Governments Act. Alleged non-disclosure and delay suggested undisclosed information but were not decisive. The argument that mandamus requires factual ascertainment could not defeat leave, as evidence could be presented at the substantive motion stage.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • At the leave stage, an argument that the substantive order (e.g. mandamus) requires ascertainment of facts is not a basis to deny leave, since both parties may avail their evidence at the substantive motion stage.
  • A respondent opposing leave must provide evidence supporting its contentions, including timelines and documentation of statutory processes relied upon.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the ex parte applicant to institute Judicial Review proceedings against the respondents, seeking an order of mandamus compelling payment of salary and allowances arrears of Kshs.1,284,960.00 and an order of prohibition against further withholding of his salaries and allowances
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 28, 41, 48, 159(2)(a) and (b), 159(2)(d), 258, 259
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 3, 3A, 1B
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 Rules 1 and 2; Order 21 Rule 1
  • County Governments ActSection 75

Cases cited (5)

  • IRC v National Federation of Self-employed and Small Business Ltd
    [1982] A.C. 617
  • Republic v Secretary of State for Environment Ex parte Greater London Council
    [1985] Time 30 December
  • Felix Kiprono Mategei v Attorney General, LSK (Amicus Curiae)
    [2021] eKLR
  • James Gacheru Kariuki and 22 Others v Kiambu County Assembly & 3 others
  • County Government of Nyeri v Cecilia Wangechi Ndungu
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 28, 41, 48, 159(2)(a) and (b), 258 and 259 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 53 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Atandi v County Government of Kisii (Judicial Review E013 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2583 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 30th June 2025 (Judicial Review). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2583/eng@2025-09-29

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