Karira v County Government of Uasin Gishu (Commercial Case E4817 of 2025) [2026] SCC 185 (KLR)

4. The application and the PO were canvassed through a written submission. From the application, Preliminary objection and the trivial submissions by parties the issue for determination is whether the P.O and the application are meritorious. 5. The respondent submitted that the court herein lacks jurisdiction to issue a certificate of order against the government. Section 4(1) of the small claims act states that; There is established a court to be known as the Small Claims Court which shall be a subordinate Court pursuant to Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution. Article 169 (d) of the Constitution enshrines that the subordinate courts are any other court or local tribunal as may be established by an Act of Parliament, other than the courts established as required by Article 162(2). Further, this court under section 12(1) states that subject to this act, the rules and any other law, the court has jurisdiction to determine any civil claim relating to a contract relating to money held and received. Subsequent to issuance of the decree this Court this court has jurisdiction to ensure enforcement of its orders. 6. This is a concluded matter, judgment having been delivered on 7th October, 2025. Todate the said judgment is yet to be satisfied by the respondent herein. The truth is the applicant herein has been denied the opportunity of enjoying the fruits of the judgment delivered. Section 21 (1) and (3) of the Government proceedings act states that: (1) Where in any civil proceedings by or against the Government, or in proceedings in connection with any arbitration in which the Government is a party, any order (including an order for costs) is made by any court in favour of any person against the Government, or against a Government department, or against an officer of the Government as such, the proper officer of the court shall, on an application in that behalf made by or on behalf of

page 2 of 5

that person at any time after the expiration of twenty-one days from the date of the order or, in case the order provides for the payment of costs and the costs require to be taxed, at any time after the costs have been taxed, whichever is the later, issue to that person a certificate in the prescribed form containing particulars of the order: Provided that, if the court so directs, a separate certificate shall be issued with respect to the costs (if any) ordered to be paid to the applicant. (3) If the order provides for the payment of any money by way of damages or otherwise, or of any costs, the certificate shall state the amount so payable, and the Accounting Officer for the Government department concerned shall, subject as hereinafter provided, pay to the person entitled or to his advocate the amount appearing by the certificate to be due to him together with interest, if any, lawfully due thereon: Provided that the court by which any such order as aforesaid is made or any court to which an appeal against the order lies may direct that, pending an appeal or otherwise, payment of the whole of any amount so payable, or any part thereof, shall be suspended, and if the certificate has not been issued may order any such direction to be inserted therein. 7. In the said act on Subsection 5 further states that this section shall, with necessary modifications, apply to any civil proceedings by or against a county government, or in any proceedings in connection with any arbitration in which a county government is a party. As such the respondents herein is rightfully bound under the stated section. I want to agree with the applicant's submission that the issuance of the certificate herein is not discretionary it is the only statutory mechanism available to the applicant to enforce the judgment

page 3 of 5

8. Justice J.N Onyiego held in the case of Republic v Garissa County Government & 2 others; Gamadid Trading Company Limited (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review E008 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 5487 (KLR) (30 April 2025) That the legal position is that, where decrees for the payment of money or costs had been issued against the Government in favour of a litigant, and the same remains unsatisfied, it can only be enforced by way of an order of mandamus compelling the accounting officer in the relevant ministry to pay the decretal amount as the Government is protected and given immunity from execution and attachment of its property/goods under section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act. 9. The only requirement which serves as a condition precedent to the satisfaction or enforcement of such decrees for money issued against the Government is found in Section 21(1) and (2) of the Government Proceedings Act. Under the said provisions, the applicant is supposed to obtain a certificate of order from the court which issued the decree. Exactly what the applicant has done herein. 10. It is important to note that this is the very court that issued the decree. Accordingly, I reaffirm the foregoing finding and hold that this Court is properly seized of the requisite jurisdiction to issue the certificate sought, the same being ancillary to the enforcement of its own decree. I associate myself with the submissions of the applicant and consequently dismiss the Preliminary Objection and allow the application with costs. 11. Leave to appeal is granted. Judgement dated and delivered at Eldoret this 31st day of July, 2026 M.E ALIGULA, RM

page 4 of 5

In the presence of C/A Mr. Lepatoiye N/A for the Claimant Ms. Yatoh h/b for Ms. Mutai for the respondent

page 5 of 5