https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1543

Kenya County Government Workers Union v County Government of Narok & 3 others (Judicial Review E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1543 (KLR) (5 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1543 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru Judicial Review E005 of 2025 AN Mwaure, J June 5, 2026 Between Kenya County Government Workers Union Ex parte Applicant and The County Government Of Narok 1st Respondent Chief Officer Finance, County Government Of Narok 2nd Respondent County Secretary, County Government Of Narok 3rd Respondent The Governor, County Government Of Narok 4th Respondent Ruling Introduction 1.The Ex-parte Applicant filed an Original Motion dated 13th January 2026 under Certificate or urgency seeking the following orders that:1.Spent2.An order of Mandamus do issue compelling the Respondents to effect payment of the sum of Kshs. 9,831,615.06/= being decretal sums and duly taxed off costs together with interest from the date of judgment till full payment.3.The costs of this application be provided for. 2.The application is brought under section 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, Cap 26 Laws of Kenya Order 53, Rules, 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Rule 10(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules and all other enabling provisions. Ex-parte Applicant’s supporting affidavit 3.The application is supported by the affidavit of Roba S. Duba, the Ex-parte Applicant’s National General Secretary, dated even date as the application. 4.The ex-parte Applicant avers being a registered union representing county government employees, filed Nakuru ELRC Cause No. E008 of 2024 seeking remittance of unpaid union dues. 5.The ex-parte Applicant avers that on 19th September 2024, Lady Justice Hellen Wasilwa entered judgment in its favour for Kshs.8,246,360/= plus costs, and a decree was extracted on 2nd October 2024. 6.The ex-parte Applicant avers that its bill of costs was taxed on 10th July 2025, and a certificate of order was issued on 7th October 2025, duly served on the Respondents. 7.Despite service, the ex-parte Applicant avers that the Respondents failed to comply, even though they had previously entered appearance but never filed a response. The union, financed through member remittances under section 19 of the Employment Act and sections 48(2) and 50(1) of the Labour Relations Act, argues that the Respondents’ failure to remit dues undermines its operations, amounts to contempt of court, and jeopardises members’ interests. 8.The ex-parte Applicant emphasizes that obedience to court orders is fundamental to the rule of law and urges the court to compel payment, noting that the Respondents’ conduct challenges judicial authority and the administration of justice. 9.At the time of writing, the Respondents have not filed any response to the application despite being served. Analysis and determination 10.In Marigi v Governor, Kajiado County [2025] KECA 523 (KLR) the Court of Appeal cited section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act which stated as follows:“Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act provides how orders obtained against the Government are to be settled. That provision specially places the duty to pay a decree against the Government upon the Accounting Officer. Section 21(3) provides as follows:“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.” (Emphasis added).In 2015, section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act was amended by section 2 of the Government Proceedings (Amendment) Act No. 35 of 2015 which added sub-clause (5) to section 21, which now provides as follows:“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.” (Emphasis added).” 11.Still in Marigi v Governor, Kajiado County(supra) the Court of Appeal cited the case of Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal ex parte Apollo Mboya [2019] eKLR, the High Court held as follows:“The grant of the orders or Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition is discretionary. The court is entitled to take into account the nature of the process against which judicial review is sought and satisfy itself that there is reasonable basis to justify the orders sought.” 12.In Republic v County Government of Siaya & 2 others; Olute (Ex parte Applicant) [2024] KEELRC 1868 (KLR) the court cited the case of two Canadian cases in Apotex Inc. vs. Canada (A.G.) (1993), 63 F.T.R. 197 (TD)(Attorney General) and reiterated in Dragan vs. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and immigration), (2003) 227 F.T.R. 272 (TD) which listed eight factors that must be present for the writ to issue, which are: -“i.There must be a public legal duty to act;ii.The duty must be owed to the Applicants;iii.There must be a clear right to the performance of that duty, meaning that:a.The Applicants have satisfied all conditions precedent; andb.There must have been:iv.A prior demand for performance:v.A reasonable time to comply with the demand, unless there was outright refusal; andvi.An express refusal, or an implied refusal through unreasonable delay;vii.No other adequate remedy is available to the Applicants;viii.The Order sought must be of some practical value or effect;ix.There is no equitable bar to the relief sought;x.On a balance of convenience. mandamus should lieAn order of Mandamus is an equitable remedy that serves to compel a public authority to perform its public legal duty. It is not disputed that the Respondents have a public legal duty to obey court orders arising from the decree issued in Kisumu ELRC Cause No. E059 of 2021 as well as the subsequent certificate of costs issue in the matter.” 13.In this instant case, the ex-parte Applicants instituted case No. Nakuru ELRC Cause No. E008 of 2024 seeking remittance of unpaid union dues. On 19th September 2024, Lady Justice Hellen Wasilwa delivered judgment in their favour, awarding Kshs.8,246,360/= plus costs, with a decree subsequently extracted on 2nd October 2024. Thereafter, the ex-parte Applicants filed a bill of costs which was taxed on 10th July 2025, and a certificate of order was issued on 7th October 2025. The certificate, together with the decree and costs, was duly served upon the Respondents, thereby crystallizing the union’s entitlement under the judgment. 14.The ex-parte Applicant further contended that it is financed through member remittances as mandated by section 19 of the Employment Act and sections 48(2) and 50(1) of the Labour Relations Act. It argued that the Respondents’ continued failure to deduct and remit union dues not only undermines the union’s operations but also amounts to contempt of court orders and gravely jeopardizes the interests of its members. 15.The court is of the view that granting an order of mandamus is a matter of discretion, and the court must be satisfied that there is a sound basis for it. In reviewing the evidence, the court has considered the judgment of 19th September 2024 awarding the ex-parte Applicant Kshs. 8,246,360/= plus costs, and the decree issued on 2nd October 2024. Despite being served, the Respondents have provided no evidence of compliance since the date of the said judgment, and with the current budget cycle ending in June 2026, the court found their continued inaction unjustified. The Respondent has presented no evidence that the said judgment has been set aside or filed an appeal which has been determined and that appeal has succeeded. The judgment is therefore still valid the same not having been set aside. 16.In light of the foregoing, the application dated 13th January 2026 is hereby merited and is allowed as prayed as follows:a.That an order of Mandamus do issue compelling the Respondents to effect payment of the sum of Kshs. 9,831,615.06/= being decretal sums and duly taxed off costs together with interest from the date of judgment till full payment. 17.The ex-parte Applicant will have costs of the application.Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAKURU THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.ANNA NGIBUINI MWAUREJUDGEOrderIn view of the declaration of measures restricting Court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open Court. In permitting this course, this Court has been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the Court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this Court the duty of the Court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes.A signed copy will be availed to each party upon payment of Court fees.ANNA NGIBUINI MWAUREJUDGE