[2025] KEHC 8356 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 8356 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated compliance with Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, as there was no evidence that the certificate of order against the Government had been served on the Attorney General or that the statutory 21-day period had lapsed. Compliance with these requirements is a condition precedent to seeking enforcement by way of mandamus. The absence of proof of service and the premature filing of the application rendered the request for leave incompetent. Consequently, the application was struck out as premature, with no orders as to costs.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 8356 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Susan Muchene; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
16 June 2025
Case Number
Judicial Review Application E158 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Apply for Mandamus
Outcome
application struck out as premature
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Mandamus Orders, Government Proceedings Act Compliance, Enforcement of Money Decrees
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Mandamus Orders Government Proceedings Act Compliance Enforcement of Money Decrees

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Muchene

Applicant

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Apply for Mandamus

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has complied with Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act prior to seeking leave for an order of mandamus.
  2. 2 Whether leave to apply for an order of mandamus can be granted without proof of service of the certificate of order against the Government and lapse of the statutory 21-day period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated compliance with Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, as there was no evidence that the certificate of order against the Government had been served on the Attorney General or that the statutory 21-day period had lapsed. Compliance with these requirements is a condition precedent to seeking enforcement by way of mandamus. The absence of proof of service and the premature filing of the application rendered the request for leave incompetent. Consequently, the application was struck out as premature, with no orders as to costs.

Court Disposition

application struck out as premature

Orders

  • The application for leave to apply for an order of mandamus is struck out.
  • No orders as to costs.