https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9661

Republic v County Government of Homabay & 3 others; Pride Kings Services (Ex parte) (Judicial Review Application E001 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9661 (KLR) (11 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9661 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kisumu Judicial Review Application E001 of 2026 JM Omido, J June 11, 2026 Between Republic Applicant and County Government Of Homabay 1st Respondent The County Secretary, Homabay County 2nd Respondent The Cec Finance, Homabay County 3rd Respondent The Chief Finance Officer, Homabay County 4th Respondent and Pride Kings Services Ex parte Judgment 1.The ex parte Applicant’s notice of motion dated 8th January, 2026 is expressed to be brought under Article 47 of the Constitution, Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, Sections 7, 8, 9 and 11(1)(f)(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act and Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and all other enabling provisions of the law and seeks the following orders:a.[Spent].b.That a Judicial Review order of mandamus be issued in favor of the ex parte Applicant against the the County Government of Homabay, the County Secretary of Homabay County, the CEC Finance of Homabay County and the Chief Finance Officer of Homabay County to forthwith pay to the Applicant, the sum of Ksh.553,850/- being the amount awarded to the ex parte Applicant against the County Government of Homabay, vide the judgement and order of the Chief Magistrates Court of Kisumu, dated 13th December, 2022 in Kisumu Civil Suit No. 621 of 2019 and in terms of the certificate of order against the government applied for, dated and issued on the 9th June, 2023.c.That this Honourable Court be pleased to set a timeline and/or duration within which the Respondents will settle the decretal sum.d.That_in the alternative, this Honorable Court be pleased to make an order of committal to civil jail of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents for a period not less than three (3) months.e.Costs of this application be provided for. 2.The grounds upon which the motion is premised are that leave to apply for the Judicial Review order of mandamus sought herein was granted on 16th December, 2025, and that the Applicant is the holder of a valid decree issued by the Chief Magistrate’s Court for payment of Ksh.553,850/- against the Respondents. 3.The Applicant contends that the judgement arose from proceedings before the Chief Magistrates Court at Kisumu where, on 22nd September, 2022, judgement was entered in favour of the Applicant against the County Government of Homabay and the Homabay County Assembly. 4.It is further stated that a formal decree was extracted on 13th December, 2022 and duly served upon the Respondents, and that thereafter a certificate of order against the Government dated 9th June, 2023 was obtained pursuant to Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act and served upon the Respondents, yet the decretal sum remains unpaid. 5.The Applicant contends that the Respondents, being indebted in the sum of Ksh.553,850/-, have failed, refused and/or neglected to satisfy the decree, which conduct amounts to contempt of court and is contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution. 6.It is further asserted that despite the existence of a valid and enforceable court order, the Applicant has no other efficacious means of realizing the fruits of the judgment, and unless the orders sought are granted, the decree will remain unexecuted, rendering the court process nugatory and the judgement a nullity in effect. 7.The Applicant therefore asserts that the continued non-compliance defeats the ends of justice and constitutes a violation of his accrued rights under the judgement. 8.It is also the Applicant’s case that this Court is vested with jurisdiction, including under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, to make such orders as are necessary to ensure the ends of justice are met and to prevent abuse of the court process, particularly where a public body is in persistent disobedience of court orders. 9.It is further stated that the period for lodging an appeal has lapsed without any appeal being preferred against the judgement, thereby rendering the decree final and binding. 10.Finally, it is contended that settlement of decretal sums owed by public entities is a legal and public duty, and that the Respondents’ continued failure to comply with the judgement undermines the authority of the Court and the rule of law, thereby necessitating the grant of the orders sought to secure compliance and uphold justice. 11.The application is supported by the verifying affidavit of Diego Nelson sworn on 8th January, 2026. The deponent avers that he is duly authorized to swear the affidavit on behalf of the ex parte Applicant. 12.The deponent further deposes that leave to apply for the Judicial Review Order of mandamus was granted on 16th December, 2025, as evidenced by annexure marked DN-1, being a copy of the said order. He also avers that the Applicant is the holder of a judgement and decree issued by the Chief Magistrates Court at Kisumu for the sum of Ksh.553,850/- against the Respondents, arising from judgement entered on 22nd September, 2022 in favour of the ex parte Applicant, with the decretal sum remaining unpaid. 13.The deponent further states that a formal order was extracted on 13th December, 2022 and served upon the Respondents on 18th October, 2023, as evidenced by annexure marked DN-2 being a copy of the said order. He further avers that a certificate of order against the Government dated 9th June, 2023 was issued pursuant to Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act and served upon the Respondents on 18th October 2023, as shown in annexure marked DN-3, being a copy of the certificate of order against the Government and annexure DN-4, being the affidavit of service confirming such service. 14.He further deposes that despite service of the decree, formal orde, and certificate of order against the Government, the Respondents have failed, refused and/or neglected to satisfy the decretal sum of Ksh.553,850/-. He contends that this refusal amounts to contempt of court and is in violation of Article 47 of the Constitution. 15.The deponent further states that the ex parte Applicant has no alternative remedy available for the realization of the fruits of the judgement, and that the continued non-compliance renders the court order ineffective and meaningless. 16.The deponent further avers that unless the orders sought are granted, the ex parte Applicant will suffer continued prejudice and remain without a remedy, as court orders are not issued in vain, and that given that no interest was awarded, the likelihood of compliance by the Respondents is remote and slim. 17.He further contends that the circumstances of the case warrant the grant of the orders sought in order to meet the ends of justice, enforce the ex parte Applicant’s accrued rights and prevent continued violation of the court’s judgement. 18.The ex parte Applicant proceeded with the application and placed full reliance on the verifying affidavit on record. It is noted that although the Respondents were duly served with the application and a hearing notice for the same to the satisfaction of the Court, none of them filed any response thereto. 19.Upon consideration of the motion, the pleadings on record, the verifying affidavit and annexures thereto, and noting that the Respondents, though duly served to the satisfaction of the Court, failed to file any response, the Court finds the application unopposed. 20.The Court is of the view that the following issues arise for determination:a.Whether the ex parte Applicant has met the threshold for the grant of an order of mandamus.b.What orders should issue as to costs and consequential directions. 21.The Court notes that the ex parte Applicant has demonstrated that leave to commence judicial review proceedings was granted on 16th December, 2025. The Court is satisfied that the Applicant has properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. 22.It is not disputed that judgement was entered in favour of the ex parte Applicant on 22nd September, 2022 in Kisumu Civil Suit No. 621 of 2019, and that a formal decree was subsequently extracted on 13th December, 2022 and served upon the Respondents on 18th October, 2023. 23.It is further established that a certificate of order against the Government dated 9th June, 2023 was duly issued pursuant to Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act and similarly served upon the Respondents. 24.Despite service of these instruments, the Respondents have failed, refused and/or neglected to satisfy the decretal sum of Ksh.553,850/-. No appeal has been lodged and the judgement therefore remains final and binding. 25.The Court is satisfied that a public law duty has arisen on the part of the Respondents to satisfy the decree, and that their continued failure to do so constitutes a breach of that duty warranting the intervention of this Court by way of mandamus. The Court further finds that the non-compliance undermines the authority of court orders and defeats the purpose of litigation, particularly where the decree holder has no other effective remedy available for realization of the judgement debt. 26.On the prayer seeking committal to civil jail of the Respondents, the Court observes that such relief is not available at this stage in judicial review proceedings and is, in any event, premature. The proper course in the first instance is to compel performance of the statutory duty through an order of mandamus. Should there be continued disobedience after issuance of such order, the Applicant would be at liberty to pursue appropriate contempt proceedings in accordance with the law. 27.In the result, the Court finds merit in the notice of motion and the same is hereby allowed in the following terms:a.An order of mandamus is hereby issued compelling the County Government of Homabay, the County Secretary of Homabay County, the County Executive Committee Member for Finance of Hombay County and the Chief Finance Officer of Homabay County to forthwith pay to the ex parte Applicant the sum of Ksh.553,850/- being the decretal sum arising from Kisumu Civil Suit No. 621 of 2019.b.The said decretal sum shall be paid within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order upon the Respondents.c.The prayer for committal to civil jail is declined as premature, with liberty to apply in appropriate proceedings in the event of continued non-compliance.d.The ex parte Applicant is awarded costs of this application, which I assess at Ksh.10,000/-.e.This file is hereby closed. DELIVERED, DATED & SIGNED THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.JOE M. OMIDOJUDGE