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

Crown Motors Group Limited v Nairobi City County Government & 1 other

Crown Motors Group Limited v Nairobi City County Government & 3 others (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 2430 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (2 March 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 2430 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDICIAL REVIEW MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E003 OF 2026 RE ABURILI, J MARCH 2, 2026 BETWEEN CROWN MOTORS GROUP LIMITED ................................................ APPLICANT AND NAIROBI CITY COUNTY GOVERNMENT ............................. 1ST RESPONDENT THE COUNTY SECRETARY NAIROBI CITY COUNTY GOVERNMENT ............................................................................ 2ND RESPONDENT THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER ,FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, NAIROBI CITY COUNTY GOVERNMENT ............................................................................ 3RD RESPONDENT THE CHIEF OFFICER - FINANCE COUNTY TREASURER NAIROBI CITY COUNTY GOVERNMENT .......................................................... 4TH RESPONDENT RULING 1. The chamber summons dated 20/1/2026 seeks leave of this court to apply for judicial review orders of mandamus to issue compelling the respondents to settle decree and certificate of order against the government issued in HCC No. 201 of 2017 on 30th April 2019 and amended on 19th April 2023 in the sum of Kshs 22,920,602.05 with interest at court rates and costs of the suit, as decreed by Justice Asenath Ongeri and amended by Justice J.Kamau. 2. The application is supported by statutory statement and an affidavit verifying the facts pleaded, sworn by Pedro Campos the Country Manager of the Applicant decree holder. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2430/eng@2026-03-02 1

page 1 of 2

3. The applicant has filed copies of the judgment, ruling amending decree, decree and certificate of order against the government from the primary suit, duly served upon the respondents and acknowledged on 8th December, 2025. It has also filed a demand letter for payment or settlement of the decree and certificate of order against the government served upon the County Attorney of the respondents City County on 24th July 2025 and in accordance with section 21 of the Government proceedings Act. 4. The application was argued orally by Ms Angote counsel for the applicant on 17th February, 2026. 5. In the absence of any evidence controverting the material placed before this court in support of the application for leave to apply, as the respondents were served but failed to appear and defend the application, I am satisfied that the applicant has a prima facie arguable case to warrant leave to apply for mandamus to compel the respondents to settle decree and certificate of order against the government as issued and amended in NRB HCC 201 of 2017. 6. I grant leave to the applicant to apply for mandamus as sought in prayer 2 of the chamber summons dated 20th January, 2026. The substantive motion to be filed within 21 days of this ruling. 7. As the chamber summons for leave is filed within a Miscellaneous application file, I direct that the substantive motion be filed in a substantive Judicial review fresh file for consideration, noting that the documents herein filed in support of the application for leave shall form the supporting documents to the substantive motion. Upon such filing, this primary file for leave shall be placed into the substantive judicial review application. 8. Costs if any shall be in the main motion. 9. This file is closed. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 R.E. ABURILI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2430/eng@2026-03-02 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.