https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1983

Republic v County Government of Nakuru & 2 others; Onyango (Ex parte Applicant) (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E005 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 1983 (KLR) (10 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1983 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E005 of 2026 AN Mwaure, J July 10, 2026 Between Republic Applicant and County Government of Nakuru 1st Respondent County Secretary, County Government of Nakuru 2nd Respondent Chief Officer Finance County Government of Nakuru 3rd Respondent and Alfred Owino Onyango Ex parte Applicant Ruling Introduction 1.The ex-parte Applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 17th April 2026 seeking orders that: 1.The Honourable Court be pleased to issue Judicial Review Orders of Mandamus for purposes of compelling and to compel the Respondent herein to, within thirty (30) days of making the said order, to compensate the ex-parte applicants as per this court’s decree issued on 13th March, 2026, from the sum of Kshs.2,980,950.40/= and accrued interests from 8th September, 2020 until payment. 2.The Applicant forgoes costs of this application. 2.The application is brought under Order 53 Rules 1,2,3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, section 8(2) of the Law Reforms Act and all other enabling provisions of the law. Ex-parte Applicant’s supporting affidavit 2.The application is supported by the affidavit of Alfred Owino Onyango, the ex-parte Applicant sworn on even date as the application. 2.The ex-parte Applicant avers that he sustained work-related injuries in 2017, was assessed at 50% permanent incapacity, and awarded compensation of Kshs.2,980,950/= by DOSH in 2020. 2.Despite a decree issued by this Honourable Court on 13th March 2026, the ex-parte Applicant avers that the Respondents have failed to pay the same and notes that while execution against government property is barred under section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, the law imposes a statutory duty on the accounting officer to settle decrees from public revenue. 2.The ex-parte Applicant argues that the Respondents' failure to comply violates his constitutional right to equal protection under Article 27(1) of the Constitution, amounts to irrationality, unreasonableness, and contempt of court, and leaves him unable to enjoy the fruits of judgment. 2.The ex parte Applicant therefore seeks judicial review orders of mandamus to compel payment, stressing that without the Court’s intervention, execution is unavailable and he risks never receiving the compensation which is lawfully due to him. 2.Despite the Respondents being served with the application, they have failed to put in a response against the application. Determination 2.The court has considered the application and the supporting affidavit and the annexures thereto; the only issue for determination is whether the order for Mandamus should be granted to the Applicant. 2.In Kenya National Examination Council v Republic; GGN & 9 others (Ex parte) [1997] KECA 58 (KLR) the Court of Appeal held as follows:“The next issue we must deal with is this: What is the scope and efficacy of an Order of Mandamus? Once again we turn to Halsbury’s Law of England, 4th Edition Volume 1 at page 111 From Paragraph 89. That learned treatise says: -“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 and 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.” 2.In this instant case, the ex-parte Applicant sustained work-related injuries in 2017, was assessed at 50% permanent incapacity, and awarded Kshs. 2,980,950 in compensation by DOSH in 2020. Despite a decree issued by this Honourable Court on 13th March 2026, the Respondents have failed to make payment. The ex- parte Applicant notes that while execution against government property is barred under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, the statute imposes a clear duty on the accounting officer to settle decrees from public revenue. The Respondents’ failure to comply is said to violate the Applicant’s constitutional right to equal protection under Article 27(1) of the Constitution, amounting to irrationality, unreasonableness, and contempt of court, and leaving him unable to enjoy the fruits of judgment. 2.The court notes that the DOSH award as assessed and granted by Director of Occupational Health and Safety awarded as compensation of Kshs.2,980,950/= in 2020, as adopted by this court on 13th March 2026 was not settled. Despite the same being adopted by court and being served, the Respondents have provided no evidence of compliance and/or settlement. 2.The court has no other choice but to grant the prayers as per the application dated 17th April 2026. The same is granted as hereundera.That an order of Mandamus do issue compelling the Respondents to effect payment of the sum Kshs. 2,980,950/= to compensate the ex-parte Applicant as per this court’s decree issued on 13th March, 2026, for the sum of Kshs.2,980,950.40/= and accrued interests from 8th September, 2020 at 14% per annum from date of judgment till full payment.2.The ex-parte Applicant will have costs of the application.Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAKURU THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY, 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.