https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9613

Ngeny (Suing Through Next Friend Philip Kipngeny Chelimo) v County Secretary, County Government of Uasin Gishu & another (Miscellaneous Judicial Review E012 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9613 (KLR) (2 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9613 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldoret Miscellaneous Judicial Review E012 of 2025 RN Nyakundi, J July 2, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY BLESSINGS CHEPTOO NGENY (SUING THROUGH NEXT FRIEND PHILIP KIPNGENY CHELIMO) AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BY WAY OF MANDAMUS AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 2,103,147 & 148 OF THE PUBLIC FINANCE MANAGEMENT ACT,2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 44 & 45 OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS ACT,2012ANDIN THE MATTER OF GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT, CHAPTER 40, LAWS OFKENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 10,23 & 41 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA Between Blessings Cheptoo Ngeny (Suing Through Next Friend Philip Kipngeny Chelimo) Ex parte Applicant and The County Secretary, County Government Of Uasin Gishu 1st Respondent The County Executive Member/Officer For Finance, County Government Of Uasin Gishu 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.Before this Court is an application dated 27th November 2025 brought under certificate of urgency. The applicant seeks the following orders:a.That an order of judicial review by way of mandamus do issue compelling the County Secretary-Uasin Gishu County and the County Executive Member/Officer for Finance-Uasin Gishu County being the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein respectively, to pay to the Applicant the sum of Kshs.371,764.10/= together with accruing interest at Court rates of 14% per annum from 13th June, 2025 in accordance with the Certificate of Order against the Government issued on 25th September, 2025 in Eldoret Sccc E814 Of 2024 Blessings Cheptoo Ngeny (Philip Kipngeny Chelimo =vs=county Government Of Uasin Gishu.b.That in default of compliance with the order of mandamus and failure to pay the judgment debt in the sum of Kshs. Kshs. 371,764.10/= together with accruing interest at Court rates of 14% per annum from 13th June, 2025, the order of mandamus be deemed as sufficient notice under Section 30(1) of the Contempt of Court Act, 2016 to the persons holding the offices of the 1st and 2nd Respondent requiring them to show cause why contempt of Court proceedings should not be commenced against them at the lapse of 30 days after service of the orders of mandamus.c.That in default of compliance with the order of mandamus and failure to pay the judgment debt in the sum of Kshs. 371,764.10/= together with accruing interest at Court rates of 14% per annum at the lapse of 30 days upon service of the order of mandamus and failing to show sufficient cause for non-compliance with the orders of mandamus, the Applicant be at liberty to commence contempt of Court proceedings against the persons holding the offices of the Respondent for them to be personally summoned to Court and be committed to civil jail for contempt of Court.d.The costs of this application be borne by the Respondents herein. 2.The application is based on the following grounds:a.That judgement was entered on 13th June, 2025 for the Applicant against the Ministry of Health County Government of Uasin Gishu Vide Eldoret Sccc E814 Of 2024blessings Cheptoo Ngeny (philip Kipngeny Chelimo=vs=county Government Of Uasin Gishu, in the sum of Kshs. 371,764.10/=together with accruing interest at Court rates of 14% per annum running from the date of judgment till payment in full.b.That the Applicant has served the Respondent with a Certificate of Order against the County Government issued on the 25th September,2025 together with the decree issued on the 13th June,2025.c.That despite a due reminder by way of demand, the County Government Of Uasin Gishu has completely failed to settle the sum herein.d.That no explanation or justification has been given by the Respondents, as the Principal Officers, under an obligation to settle such debts owing from the COunty Governmentof Uasin Gishu, for their continued reluctance to make this payment and the Applicant is now desperate and apprehensive that the Respondents have no intention at all to make this payment in fulfilment of a valid standing judgment in a decree and Certificate of Costs to date.e.The Respondents have a constitutional and legal obligation to settle the judgment debt and have a public duty to comply with all orders of the Court and their failure and/or refusal to pay is a gross abdication of that duty and is injurious to the public accruing interest.f.The actions and omissions of the Respondents are a violation of the Applicant's rights which are enforceable by this Court through these proceedings.g.The conduct of the Respondents abdication of its constitutional and legal obligation, amounts to a violation of the Applicant's constitutional rights and is injurious to the public accruing interest as the funds out of which the Respondents must settle the decree are public funds.h.The Applicant has been granted leave by this Court to bring these proceedings in accordance with the relevant law 3.In support of the application is the affidavit Philip Kipngeny Chelimo who deponed as follows:a.That I am the Applicant herein and hence competent to swear this affidavit.b.That I am advised by my advocates on record which information I believe to be true that, it is within the scope of the law that an execution process against government or county government and/or any arm thereof must make an application to compel the said respective personnel/officials in the county government body to do the Act and failure of which be committed to civil jail.c.That I am further advised by my advocates on record which advice I verily believe to be true that the Respondents can also be summoned before the Court to show cause for failure to offset the decretal sum, costs and accruing interest in satisfaction of a validly standing Decree and Certificate of Costs.d.That I know that the present application emanates from the judgment of the Court delivered on 13th June,2025 in my favour against the County Government of Uasin Gishu in the suit Eldoret Sccc E814 Of 2024 Blessings Cheptoo Ngeny (Philip Kipngeny Chelimo =vs= County Government Of Uasingishu.e.That I am informed by my advocates of record which information I verily believe to be true that we obtained a decree and certificate of costs dated 13th June, 2025 from the Small Claims Court of ELDORET SCCC E814 OF 2024 Blessings Cheptoo Ngeny (Philip Kipngeny Chelimo =vs= County Government Of Uasingishu in the sum of Kshs. Kshs. 371,764.10/= together with accruing interest at Court rates of 14% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.f.That I am further informed by my advocates on record which information I verily believe to be true that after delivery and entry of judgment in my favour through my counsel on record, the Judgment debtor and its insurer were notified that they were to offset the said decretal sum.g.That I am aware that several months have since lapsed when the decree was issued, the Respondents have showed no intent or commitment to settle the same hence necessitating this application/suit.h.That I am advised by my advocates on record which advice I verily believe to be true that as a public entity, the Respondents are under a constitutional and legal obligation to comply with the law and with orders of a Court of law by settling the decretal sum.i.That I am advised by my advocates on record which advice I verily believeto be true that the refusal and the delay in making settlement of the decretal sum is inimical to the public accruing interest as public funds are being lost as result of the delayed payment of the decretal sum which is attracting accruing interest as ordered by the Court.j.That I am advised by my advocates on record which advice I verily believe to be true that responsibility in initiating and making payment lies on the County Secretary-Uasin Gishu County and the County Executive Member/Officer for Finance-Uasin Gishu County, sued herein as the 1s and 2nd Respondents respectively.k.That I am advised by my advocates on record which advice I verily believe to be true that the refusal of the 1s and 2nd Respondents to comply with the orders of the Court and pay the Applicant the amount due is an abdication of public duty, a refusal to honour the rule of law and the promotion of bad governance in the management of public affairs.l.That I am informed by my advocates on record which information I verily believe to be true that I have been granted leave of the honourable Court to commence proceedings seeking for the orders of mandamus against the Respondents herein.m.That I am advised by my advocates on record which information I believe to be true that, it is within the scope of the law that an execution process against government or county government and/or any arm thereof must make an application to compel the said respective personnel/officials in the county government body to do the Act and failure of which be committed to civil jail.n.That I am further advised by my advocates on record which advice I verily believe to be true that the Respondents can also be summoned before the Court to show cause for failure to offset the decretal sum.o.That save as is otherwise stated herein, there is no other cause pending and there have been no previous proceedings in any Court between the applicant and the Respondents over the same subject matter and the cause of action relates to the applicant named in this application.p.That I swear this affidavit in support of the application for orders of mandamus filed herein and all that is stated herein above is true to the best of my knowledge information and belief sources whereof being disclosed. 4.It is further annexed by a replying affidavit which states as follows:a.That I am the Chief Officer for roads, transport and public of the Respondents herein and therefore conversant with the facts in this matter and competent to make and swear this affidavit.b.That I have read, understood and had the import of the Applicants' Judicial review application dated 9th December, 2025 and the same has been explained to me by my advocates on record and I wish to oppose the said application.3. THAT the contents of paragraph 2 are admitted only to the extent that the Applicant has correctly stated the legal procedure. However, it is emphasized that enforcement against Government entities is subject to statutory and administrative processes which the Respondents are currently undertaking.c.That in response to paragraph 3 of the Applicants application, the contents are noted. The Respondents however state that they remain committed to settling lawful decrees and have not willfully refused to comply with any Court order.d.That in response to paragraph 4 of the Applicants application, the contents are admitted to the extent that judgment was delivered. However, the Respondents state that the matter arises from a claim that was subject to an insurance policy, and the insurer was duly notified to take up the defence and/or settle the claim to date.e.That in response to paragraph 5 of the Applicants application, the contents are admitted as to the existence of the decree and Certificate of Costs. The Respondents however state that settlement of such decrees is subject to internal governmental processes, including budgetary allocation and approvalf.That in response to paragraph 6 of the Applicants application, the Respondents admit receipt of notice of entry of judgment. However, the Respondents state that immediately upon receipt, the matter was forwarded to the relevant departments including the County Treasury and the insurer for appropriate action.g.That in response to paragraph 7 of the Applicants application, the contents are denied and the Respondents have not refused to settle the decretal sum but have been engaging in administrative and financial processes necessary for settlement. Any delay is not deliberate but occasioned by procedural requirements.h.That in response to paragraph 8 of the Applicants application, the contents are admitted. However, the Respondents reiterate that they are in the process of complying with the said obligation.i.That in response to paragraph 9 of the Applicants application, the contents are denied to the extent that the Respondents have acted in bad faith. The Respondents state that any delay has not resulted from refusal but from necessary governmental processes and ongoing efforts to settle the decree.j.That in response to paragraph 10 of the Applicants application, the Respondents admit that the responsibility of settlement lies with the relevant County offices. However, such responsibility must be exercised within the framework of public finance management laws and procedures.k.That Respondents deny the contents of paragraph 11 of the Applicants application, in totality and the Applicant shall be put to strict proof thereof.l.That the contents of paragraph 12 of the Applicants application are admitted to the extent that leave was granted. The Respondents shall respond substantively to the application and urge the Court to consider the circumstances surrounding the delay.m.1THAT in response to paragraph 13 of the Applicants application, The Respondents state that committal to civil jail is not automatic and can only arise upon willful disobedience of a lawful Court order, which is not the case herein.n.That in response to paragraph 14 of the Applicants application, the Respondents state that they are ready to demonstrate before this Honourable Court the steps taken towards settlement of the decretal sum.o.That the contents of paragraph 15 of the Applicants application are admitted. 5.In the quest for grant of orders of mandamus learned Counsel Mr. Omusundi filed submissions dated 9.12.2025 in which he observed that the Respondents have neglected and declined to pay the Applicant a sum of Kshs 371, 764.10 together with accruing interests at Court rates of 14% per annum with effect from 13.6.2025 with orders against the Respondents issued on 25.9.2025 in Eldoret Small Claims Court E814/2024. It was further the contention of learned Counsel for the Applicant that following the certificate of costs and subsequent decree there have been numerous correspondences but no response has been forthcoming from the Respondent. In furtherance of bringing forth the issues which are in dispute learned counsel submitted on the legal perspectives as laid down in the following cases to urge this Court to exercise discretion in his favour for a prerogative writ of mandamus (See the Principles in: Republic v County Government of Narok (Defunct County Council of Narok) & 2 others Gachara & 9 others, Republic vs Attorney general & Another Exparte James Alfred Koroso, Nairobi HC JR Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 2012, Republic v Permanent Secretary Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security (2012) eKLR. 6.This application under the direction of this Court was canvased by way of written submissions by both parties. In the matter of the Respondents legal Counsel one Ruto Jepchirichir she contended that the question to be answered is whether the Applicant has satisfied the threshold for grant of an order of mandamus in driving the issues at home to persuade the Court to exercise discretion for grant a prerogative writ of mandamus, learned Counsel urged the Court to place reliance on the following authorities:- Republic vs Kenya National Examination/Council ex parte Gathenji, Republic v Attorney General & another ex parte James Alfred Koroso, Republic v Permanent Secretary Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security ex parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza, Republic v Attorney General ex parte Stephen Wanyee Roki.With precision learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Respondent was served with all the instruments involving the Judgement but has failed to honour and settle the Judgment debt. She therefore prayed for a judicial remedy for mandamus. 7.In Kenya prerogative writs are used to compel a public body or official to perform a clear or statutory duty that they have refused or failed to execute the Courts exercise discretion to grant the orders of prohibition, certiorari and mandamus based on the foundation principles established by the Court of Appeal in the case of Kenya National Examination Council vs Republic Ex Parte Geoffrey Gathenji Civil Appeal No 266 of 1996 in which the said Court held inter alia as follows:“The order of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature, and is, in form, a command issuing from the High Court of Justice, directed to any person, corporation or inferior tribunal, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. Its purpose is to remedy the defects of justice and accordingly it will issue, to the end that justice may be done, in all cases where there is a specific legal right or no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right; and it may issue in cases where, although there is an alternative legal remedy, yet that mode of redress is less convenient, beneficial and effectual. The order must command no more than the party against whom the application is legally bound to perform. Where a general duty is imposed, a mandamus cannot require it to be done at once. Where a statute, which imposes a duty, leaves discretion as to the mode of performing the duty in the hands of the party on whom the obligation is laid, a mandamus cannot command the duty in question to be carried out in a specific way… These principles mean that an order of mandamus compel the performance of a public duty which is imposed on a person or body of persons by a statute and where that person or body of persons has failed to perform the duty to the detriment of a party who has a legal right to expect the duty to be performed. An order of mandamus compels the performance of a duty imposed by statute where the person or body on whom the duty is imposed fails or refuses to perform the same but if the complaint is that the duty has been wrongfully performed i.e. that the duty has not been performed according to the law, then mandamus is wrong remedy to apply for because, like an order of prohibition, an order of mandamus cannot quash what has already been done”. 8.These remedies arise out of Article 23 of the Constitution and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Court is given Judicial powers to interrogate exercise of the Public Bodices statutory mandate as conferred by the statute as read with Article 10, 22, 24, 27, 47, 48, & 50 of the constitution to rule and establish whether it was properly, justly, correctly, legally and reasonably exercised. This is what the Court spoke about in the case of Keroche Industries Limited vs Kenya Revenue Authority & 5 Others Nairobi HCMA No. 743 of 2006 (2007) KLR it was held as follows:-“On the issue of discretion Prof Sir William Wade in his Book Administrative Law has summarized the position as follows: The powers of public authorities are --- essentially different from those of private persons. A man making his will, may subject to any right of his dependants dispose of his property just as he may wish. He may act out of malice or a spirit of revenge, but in law, this does not affect his exercise of his power. In the same way a private person has an absolute power to allow whom he likes to use his land ……regardless of his motives. This is unfettered discretion. But a public authority may do none of these things unless it acts reasonably and in good faith and upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest The whole conception of unfettered discretion, is inappropriate to a public authority which possesses powers solely in order that it may use them for the public good. But for public bodies the rule is opposite and so of another character altogether. It is that any action to be taken must be justified by positive law. A public body has no heritage of legal rights which it enjoys for its own sake, at every turn, all of its dealings constitute the fulfillment of duties which it owes to others; indeed, it exists for no other purpose…But in every such instance and no doubt many others where a public body asserts claims or defences in Court, it does so, if it acts in good faith, only to vindicate the better performances of the duties for whose merit it exists. It is in this sense that it has no rights of its own, no axe to grind beyond its public responsibility; a responsibility which define its purpose and justifies its existence, under our law, that is true of every public body. The rule is necessary in order to protect the people from arbitrary interference by those set in power over them…” 9.In a nutshell learned Counsel contended that there is prove on a balance of probabilities for the writ of mandamus to be issued against the Respondents for the outstanding decree to be settled without further delay. 10.The Respondent’s Learned Counsel on the other hand filed written submissions dated 7th May of March 2026 in which she opposed any grant of the writ of mandamus as prayed for by the ex-parte Applicant. In addition, learned Counsel for the Respondent laid down the position with regard to the judgment and decree of the Court which is not disputed. According to learned Counsel for the Respondents they remain committed to settling lawful decrees and have not willfully refused to comply with any Court order. In this regard learned Counsel informed the Court by way of written submissions that they received the notice of entry of judgment however the matter was forwarded to the relevant departments including the County Treasury and insurer for appropriate action. She therefore prayed that the mandamus order sought should not be granted and the Court should be guided by the principles in the following cases: Republic v Attorney General & Another ex parte James Alfred Koroso, Republic v Permanent Secretary Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security ex parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza and Republic v Attorney General ex parte Stephen Wanyee Roki. 11.The basis of this Judicial Review Petition is based on the above evidence and the principles as adduced before this Court by the Legal counsels seized of this matter. The threshold issue is whether the Petitioner/Applicant has met the criteria for an order of mandamus as against the Respondent’s devolved unit. Decision 12.The doctrine of Judicial Review in Kenya empowers the High Court to supervise and invalidate unlawful or unreasonable actions by public authorities. It is governed primarily by Articles 165(6) (7), 47, 48 and 50 of the Constitution. The process evaluates the legality, rationality and procedural fairness of decision making rather than the decision itself. These are the explanatory notes for the core guiding principles on Judicial Review:a.Supervisory, Not Appellate: Courts review how a decision was made (the process), not the merits of the decision itself.b.Illegality: Public bodies must act strictly within the powers authorized by law. Decisions must not be ultra vires (beyond the actor's jurisdiction) or tainted by errors of law.c.Rationality: A decision must be logically connected to the purpose and statutory provisions that authorized it.d.Procedural Fairness: Decision-makers must afford individuals the right to a fair hearing, notice, and an impartial process free from bias.e.Proportionality: Under Article 47 of the Constitution, any administrative action must be expeditious, efficient, lawful and reasonable.f.Separation of powers: Judicial review reinforces the principle of separation of powers by allowing the judiciary to check and balance the actions of the executive and legislative branches, ensuring that they remain within the bounds of the law.g.Access to Justice: Judicial review provides a mechanism for individuals and entities to access justice and protect their rights, holding public authorities accountable for their actions.h.Scope of Review: The scope of judicial review can vary, ranging from reviewing specific administrative decisions to broader examinations of government policies or legislation. 13.This is what the Court decided in the case of Republic vs Attorney General & 4 Others [2014] eKLR as herein under stated:“Judicial review applications do not deal with the merits of the case but only with the process. In other words, judicial review only determines whether the decision makers had the jurisdiction, whether the persons affected by the decision were heard before it was made and whether in making the decision the decision maker took into account relevant matters or did take into account irrelevant matters. It follows that where an applicant brings judicial review proceedings with a view to determining contested matters of facts and in effect urges the Court to determine the merits of two or more different versions presented by the parties the Court would not have jurisdiction in a judicial review proceeding to determine such a matter and will leave the parties to resort to the normal forums where such matters ought to be resolved. Therefore judicial review proceedings are not the proper forum in which the innocence or otherwise of the applicant is to be determined and a party ought not to institute judicial review proceedings with a view to having the Court determine his innocence or otherwise. To do so in my view amounts to abuse of the judicial process. The Court in judicial review proceedings is mainly concerned with the question of fairness to the applicant......." 14.The legal framework governing Judicial Review falls within the following constitutional and statutory provisions; thus:a.The Constitution of Kenya, 2010: Article 47 guarantees the fundamental right to fair administrative action.b.Fair Administrative Action Act (FAAA), 2015: This Act codified the grounds and procedures for judicial review in Kenya, ensuring public officials are held accountable.c.Procedural Rules: The traditional remedies of Certiorari, Mandamus, and Prohibition are governed procedurally under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 15.In addition, ultimately in 2010 the Kenyan people gave themselves a progressive and transformative Constitution which fundamentally restructured the governance of the country and did not forget to incorporate a higher culture and values for the public service. The guiding principle for all government actions (cutting through the executive, legislature, and judiciary) is the promotion of public interest and protection of the fundamental rights of the individual and of groups identifiable by gender, community, age, or unique needs. Identifiable groups under the Constitution of Kenya 2010 include children (article 53); youth (article 55); minorities and marginalized groups (Article 56); the elderly persons (Article 57); communities identified by ethnicity, culture or similar interests (article 63); gender (male, female); and family (Article45), among others. This is the new and elevated focus of administrative law going forward into the future under the new constitutional dispensation. 16.The Supreme Court in the case of Communication Commission of Kenya -v- Royal Media Services & 5 Others – Petition No. 4 of 2014; [2014] eKLR expressed itself as follows inter alia:“The words in Article 10(1) (b) “applies or interprets any law” in our view includes the application and interpretation of rules of common law and indeed, any statute. Under Article 10 of the Constitution, national values and principles of governance bind “all State organs, State Officers, Public Officers, and all persons whenever any of them applies or interprets the Constitution; enacts, applies or interprets any law; or makes or implements public policy decisions.” 17.In this judicial review petition, it is clear that the Applicant/Petitioner was injured in a road traffic accident attributed to the negligence of the agents or servants of the County Government of Uasin Gishu now herein named the Respondents and in terms of description the Respondents have been sued jointly and severally to the effect that within the provisions of Sections 2, 103, 147 & 148 of the Public Finance Management Act 2012 as read with Sections 44 and 45 of the County Government’s Act 2012 together with the Government Proceedings Act, there is a judgment of the Court which has not been settled totaling to a decretal sum of Ksh 371,764.10 in favour of the Applicant/Petitioner. In the present application the Applicant/Petitioner has demonstrated existence of a judgment to be satisfied by the Court dated 13th June 2025. This judgment remains unsettled hence the reason for the Applicant/Petitioner seeking an order of mandamus. The writ of mandamus now in Kenya compels a Public Official or body to perform a specific statutory or public duty they have unjustifiably refused or failed to perform. 18.The core principles of mandamus in Kenya involve the following condition precedent to be surpassed by the Applicant/Petitioner:a.Public Legal Duty: The duty must be a public or statutory obligation, not a mere contractual or discretionary power.b.Refusal to Act: There must be an express refusal, or an implied refusal caused by an unreasonable delay, to perform the duty.c.Alternative Remedies: The applicant must show they have exhausted all alternative administrative remedies before approaching the High Court.d.Practical Value: The order must serve a practical and enforceable purpose. 19.The Court in the case of Pastoli vs Kabale District Local Government Council & Others 2 EA 300 held as follows:“In order to succeed in an application for judicial review, the applicant has to show that the decision or act complained of is tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Illegality is when the decision-making authority commits an error of law in the process of making the act the subject of the complaint. Acting without jurisdiction or ultra vires or contrary to the provisions of the law or its principles are instance of illegality...irrationality is when there is such gross unreasonableness in the decision taken or act done that no reasonable authority, addressing itself to the facts and the law before it would have made such a decision...such a decision is in defiance of logic and acceptable moral standards. Procedural impropriety is when there is failure to act fairly on the part of the decision-making authority in the process of taking a decision. The unfairness may be in non-observance of the rules of natural justice or to fail to act with procedural fairness towards one to be affected by the decision. It may also involve failure to adhere and observe procedural rules expressly laid down in statute or legislative instrument by which such authority exercises jurisdiction to make a decision.” 20.In cases of this nature, there is a legitimate expectation which must be fulfilled by the County Government in view of the fact that the trial Court found it guilty of negligence and proceeded to assess an award of damages for the injuries suffered. Am also mindful of the fact that this Court had the advantage and the privilege to be part of the three-bench justice of Kenya on the issue of jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court with regard to Road Traffic Accident Claims. However, I take the view that the decision of the Court does not apply retrospectively to the already decided cases of this nature before this Court. The Respondent County Government have no room to hide behind that Constitutional Petition so as not to settle the decree of the Court. That will be in violation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation as discussed by learned Author in H. W. R. Wade & C. F. Forsyth Administrative Law, by HWR Wade, C.F. Forsyth, Oxford University Press, 2000 at pages 449 to 450. who stated as follows:“It is not enough that an expectation should exist; it must in addition be legitimate…. First of all, for an expectation to be legitimate it must be founded upon a promise or practice by the public authority that is said to be bound to fulfil the expectation….. Second, clear statutory words, of course, override an expectation howsoever founded….. Third, the notification of a relevant change of policy destroys any expectation founded upon the earlier policy…." “An expectation whose fulfillment requires that a decision-maker should make an unlawful decision, cannot be a legitimate expectation. It is inherent in many of the decisions, and express in several, that the expectation must be within the powers of the decision-maker before any question of protection arises. There are good reasons why this should be so: an official cannot be allowed in effect to rewrite Acts of Parliament by making promises of unlawful conduct or adopting an unlawful practice.” 21.The Respondents in their submissions and evidence have not answered the question that there is sufficient public interest to override the legitimate expectation of the Applicant/Petitioner to be paid the decretal sum arising out of the tort of negligence in which he suffered loss and damage. In the case of Nadaraja v Secretary of State for the Home Department 3005 ECWA Civ. 1363 in which the Court observed that:“The principle that good administration requires public authorities to be held to their promises would be undermined if the law did not insist that any failure or refusal to comply is objectively justified as a proportionate measure in the circumstances. It is for the authority to prove that its failure or refusal to honor its promises was justified in the public interest. There is no burden on the applicant to prove that the failure or refusal was not justified.” 22.In this application the Applicant has demonstrated that he has a clear and indisputable right that the writ of mandamus is an appropriate under the circumstances so that the decretal sum can be settled by the Respondents without further delay. I am therefore persuaded and respectively so that this Court exercises its supervisory authority to direct the Respondent by an order of mandamus to satisfy the judgment and decree of the Court as served upon it totaling to Ksh 371,764.10 with costs and further interest at Court rates until payment in full. It is so ordered. DATED, DELIVERED AND PUBLISHED VIA CTS AT ELDORET THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY 2026.………………………….……….R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE