Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v The County Secretary, County Government of Kisumu & 1 other

Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v County Secretary, County Government of Kisumu & 2 others (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E006 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 3884 (KLR) (19 April 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 3884 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU JUDICIAL REVIEW MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E006 OF 2024 RE ABURILI, J APRIL 19, 2024 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY OTIENO, RAGOT & COMPANY ADVOCATES AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS E, 103, 147 &148 OF THE PUBLIC FINANCE MANAGEMENT ACT, 2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 44 & 45 OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT ACT, 2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT, CHAPTER 40 LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 10, 23 &47 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA BETWEEN OTIENO, RAGOT & COMPANY ADVOCATES ................................. APPLICANT AND THE COUNTY SECRETARY, COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KISUMU .......................................................................................... 1ST RESPONDENT THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR FINANCE, COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KISUMU .................................................... 2ND RESPONDENT https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2024/3884/eng@2024-04-19 1

page 1 of 2

COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KISUMU .................................. 3RD RESPONDENT RULING 1. I have considered the Exparte Chamber Summons dated 4th April 2024, the grounds, the verifying affidavit and statutory statement together with annextures thereto. 2. I am satisfied that there is a valid decree and certificate of order against the Government issued in favour of the Applicant Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates against the 3rd Respondents herein the County Government of Kisumu in Kisumu HC Misc. No. E20 of 2023 and that demand has been made for settlement of the said decretal sum of Kshs.156,060 but no settlement has been made. 3. I grant the Applicant/Advocate leave to file Judicial Review application seeking orders of Mandamus to compel the 3rd Respondents’ accounting officer to settle the decretal sum as decreed. 4. The substantive motion to be filed and served with twenty-one (21) days of today. 5. I make no orders as to costs of this application. 6. The Ruling and order to be typed and extracted accordingly. 7. This file is closed. The main motion to be filed in a fresh file. 8. I so order. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 R. E. ABURILI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2024/3884/eng@2024-04-19 2

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.