REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. E030 OF 2026 INTRASPEED APPLICANTS LOGISTICS LTD & 15 OTHERS……………………… VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE also known as INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE…………...……………….…1ST RESPONDENT THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL…………...……………….…..2ND RESPONDENT RULING 1. On 24th April 2026, I delivered a judgement herein, where I dismissed the motion, dated 6th February 2026, on grounds that the duty to settle the decree, the subject of the proceedings, had not accrued, as the certificate of order against the government, although obtained, had not been served on the Attorney General or brought to the attention of the accounting officer, to facilitate settlement of the decree. 2. Subsequent to delivery of that judgement, the applicants came back to court, by a motion, dated 27th April 2026, seeking review of the said judgement, under order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, on the basis that they had availed a certificate of order against the government, hence there was an error on the face of the record, in the court holding that such a certificate had not been availed. 3. With respect, I believe that there has been a misapprehension of the judgement, for the applicants do not appear to have read the same keenly. The motion was not dismissed because the certificate of order against the government had not been availed. That was not the issue. At paragraph 15 of the judgement, I had observed that a certificate of order against the government had been obtained, issued on 21st January 2026, and that the same had been exhibited in the affidavits filed by the applicants, sworn on 2nd and 6th February 2026. 4. The critical issue was with respect to service of that certificate of order against the government, the same having been properly obtained. I had observed, at paragraph 15 of the judgement, that 1
page 1 of 3
there was no evidence that the said certificate of order against the government had been served on the accounting officer, for the duty to settle the decree to accrue. I had noted, in the judgement, that the applicants had not displayed or attached, to their affidavits, a copy of an affidavit of service, attesting to service of the said all-important accounting document. 5. At paragraph 16 of the judgement, I had noted that there was nothing, on the face of the certificate of order against the government, exhibited in the affidavits filed by the applicants, showing a stamp or stamps, embossed on the face of the copy of the certificate of order against the government exhibited, by either or both of the respondents, as proof that it had indeed been served. 6. I reiterate, that the requirement, for extraction of the certificate of order against the government, is in section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, Cap 41, Laws of Kenya. Section 21(1) is the provision which makes that requirement. Section 21(2) requires service of that certificate on the Attorney General, who should then bring it to the attention of the accounting officer, who is then required, under section 21(3), to settle the amount appearing by that certificate. 7. Case law, in such cases as Republic vs. Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security Exparte Fredrick Manoah Egunza [2012] eKLR and Kungu vs. County Government of Nairobi [2024] KEHC 3265 (KLR), is clear, that where the certificate of order against the government has not been served, the duty to pay would not accrue, and an application for mandamus would be premature. 8. In view of the above, the applicants herein have not demonstrated that there is an error on the face of the impugned judgement. It has also not been demonstrated that the applicants discovered new evidential material of importance, after delivery of the judgement, with respect to service of the said certificate, which had not been available at the time when the substantive motion for mandamus was being filed. 9. The application, dated 27th April 2026, does not exhibit an affidavit of service, with respect to service of the certificate of order against the government, dated 21st January 2026. Neither does the exhibited 2
page 2 of 3
copy of that certificate of order against the government have an official receipt stamp, embossed on it by either or both of the respondents, as proof that the same was served on them. In the absence of proof of service of the certificate, the duty to settle the decree has not accrued, and it shall not accrue, until the said certificate is properly served, in accordance with section 21(2) of the Government Proceedings Act. 10. There is no merit, whatsoever, to the motion, dated 27th April 2026, and I hereby dismiss the same. The Deputy Registrar shall cause this file to be closed. Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, VIA CTS, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT MILIMANI, NAIROBI, ON THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026. W MUSYOKA JUDGE Mr. Abdirahman, Court Assistant. Advocates Mr. Museve, instructed by JW Guserwa & Company, Advocates for the applicants. Mr. Ngumbi, instructed by the Hon. Attorney General, for the respondents. 3
page 3 of 3