https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7491

Republic v County Secretary, County Government of Uasin Gishu & 2 others (Judicial Review E005 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 7491 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7491 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldoret Judicial Review E005 of 2024 RN Nyakundi, J May 29, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (MANDAMUS) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LAW REFORM ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 53(3) OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 1(1) (2), 2(1), (2), 10(1) (B), 20(1), 21(1), 23(1), 27(1), 28, 73, 156 AND 165 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 Between Republic Applicant and County Secretary, County Government of Uasin Gishu 1st Respondent Chief Officer Finance, the County Government Of Uasin Gishu 2nd Respondent County Government Of Uasin Gishu 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.Before this Honorable Court is an application under Certificate of urgency dated 10th day of December 2025 premised under Articles 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, Sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 Laws of Kenya and all other enabling provisions of the law where the Applicant is seeking the following orders:a.Spent.b.That pending the hearing and determination of this application, a notice to show cause be issued against Philip Meli, the office holder of the 1st Respondent and Eliud Kipkorir Chemaget, the Office holder of the 2nd Respondent and/or any officer that may hold the two respective offices to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail for contempt of the Court orders issued by this Court on the 15th October 2025.c.That Philip Meli, the office holder of the 1st Respondent and Eliud Kipkorir Chemaget, the office holder of the 2nd Respondent or any other officer that my hold the two respective offices be held in contempt of the Court orders issued by this Court on 15th October 2025, compelling the Respondents to pay the expart Applicant the sum of Kshs 2,798,256.00 together with all accrued interest.d.That the court be pleased to order that Philip Meli, the office holder of the 1st Respondent, Eliud Kipkorir Chemaget, the office holder of the 2nd Respondent and/or any officer that may hold the respective offices be committed to civil jail for a period of six months for contempt or the court orders issued by this Court on 15th October 2025.e.The 1st and 2nd Respondent, the County Secretary and the Chief Officer Finance of the County Government of Uasin Gishu be cited for contempt of Court for willful disobedience of the Ruling/Orders of this Honourable Court delivered on 15th October 2025, by Hon. Justice R. Nyakundi directing payment of the award sum of Kenya Shillings Two Million Seven Hundred and Ninety-Eight thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Six (Kshs 2,798,256.00) to the Applicant.f.That this Court do issue any other appropriate sanctions and penalties against the Respondents for failure to comply with the said orders.g.This Honourable Court be pleased to give any other further necessary orders as it deems fit.h.That costs of this application to be borne by the Respondents. 2.On the premises that:a.The Respondent the County Government of Uasin Gishu, contracted the legal services of the Ex-parte Applicant, for which fees are due and payable for the services rendered.b.The exparte Applicant filed taxation causes before this Honourable Court, which were duly heard and determined on merit.c.That on 15th October 2025 the learned Judge delivered a ruling ordering the Respondents to pay the ex-parte Applicant a sum of Kshs 2,798,256.00 after a Judicial Review Cause was filed, heard and determined.d.Despite service of the said ruling and the resultant Orders the Respondents have failed, neglected and/or refused to comply with the court’s orders.e.The Respondent’s conduct amounts to willful disobedience of Court orders, undermines the authority of the Honourable Court, and is blatant contempt of court.f.That it is in the interest of justice and the rule of law that the Respondents be punished for contempt and be compelled to comply with the Court’s orders. 3.Which application is further premised on grounds enumerated in the affidavit sworn by Othuro Gustine who deponed as follows:a.That I am the advocate in conduct of this matter with knowledge of all material facts herein and hence competent to swear this affidavit.b.That the Respondent, the County Government of Uasin Gishu, contracted the professional services of the Applicant herein for which fees were due and payable.c.That we filed taxation causes before this Honurable Court, which were duly heard and determined.d.That thereafter we filed this Judicial Review cause wherein an order was given on the 15th day of October, 2025 in favour of the ex-parte Applicant.e.That on 15th October 2025 the learned Judge delivered a ruling/Order directing the Respondents to pay the awarded sum of Kshs 2,798,256.00.f.That despite service of the said ruling and the resultant Order, the Respondents have failed, neglected, and/or refused to comply with the Court’s orders.g.That the Respondents are duly aware of the existence and import of the orders given on 15th October 2025.h.The Respondents conduct amounts to contempt of Court.i.That we invite this Honourable Court to direct the 1st and 2nd Respondents, the County Secretary County Government of Uasin Gishu and the Chief Officer Finance County Government of Uasin Gishu to be in contempt of the orders given on 15th October 2025.j.That we urge this Honourable Court to direct the Respondents to purge the contempt forthwith.k.That we urge this Honourable Court to make any further/necessary orders as it deems fit.l.That this application is made in good faith and in the best interest of justice.m.That I pray that this application be allowed. Decision 4.The application for judicial review is premised under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Article 23 of the Constitution. A claim for judicial review means a claim to review the lawfulness of an enactment or a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function. In our very own legal system judicial review is generally understood as describing the process by which the Courts exercise a supervisory jurisdiction over the acts or omissions of public bodies in the field of public law. This High Court draws part of its jurisdiction under Articles 165(6) & (7) and 23 of the Constitution as read with Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Act. In specific terms under the law, judicial review is available only against public bodies, that is bodies exercising a power or performing a duty which involves a public element. 5.In addition, where public body is under a statutory duty to make arrangements to provide a particular service and it makes arrangements by means of a contract with a company then that company does not owe any public law duties and its actions are not amenable to judicial review. The current application can be contradistinguished by conveniently summarizing the facts which involve the County Government procuring professional legal services from the Applicants which are taxable under the Advocates Remuneration Order (ARO). From the taxed Bill of Costs a judgment of the Court was entered followed with a decree to satisfied by the County Government. The decree of the Court has been extracted and served upon the County Government. The County Government has not provided any detailed reasons why the decree cannot be satisfied as per the law under the Government Proceedings Act. In the realm of judicial review Court, the Court does not act as the Court of Appeal or the public body concerned but it provides supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that public bodies do not exceed or abuse their powers. 6.In the area of judicial review the following grounds lie for the Court to interfere with the decision:a.Error of law; judicial review will lie where an inferior Court or tribunal or other public body or authority makes an error of law in exercising its powers or its duties.b.Procedural propriety; judicial review will lie where there has been a breach of common law rules of natural justice or procedural fairness.c.Irrationality; decisions of public authorities are liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with by an appropriate order in judicial review proceedings if the court concludes that no person properly directing himself as to the relevant law could reasonably have reached that decision on the material before it or if the decision is otherwise irrational.d.Abuse of power generally; the Courts have developed other principles of public law enforceable by way of judicial review to ensure that public bodies do not abuse their powers. These principles include ensuring that public bodies exercise their powers in order to further the statutory purpose for which the powers were conferred and do not act for an improper or an ulterior purpose. See the principles in R. v Bedwelly Justices Ex p. William [1997] AC 225, Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40, Associated Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB. 223 and Padfiled v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries & Food [1968] AC 997. 7.The application before this Court arises out of the ruling of this Court dated 15th October 2025 in which this Court ruled as follows:“ 14.There is a judgment in place declaring the rights of both the ex parte Applicant and the 1st Respondent. In law, a declaration of rights, also known as a declaratory judgment is the declaration by a Court of the legal rights and obligations of parties in a suit with or without making any consequential order. A declaration of right is a declaration that one party is right and another party is wrong, that one party has a right and the other party owes an obligation and the making of an appropriate order by the Court to do justice in the circumstances. It is a judgment declaring the legal rights of a party. A declaration of rights is binding whether a Court makes consequential orders along with it or not, unless the judgment is reversed on appeal. 15. Why Mandamus? The term “Mandamus” is a Latin word meaning' we command'. The prerogative writ of mandamus is a judicial command addressed to and compelling the respondent to perform a public duty. A writ of mandamus does not issue except to command the fulfilment of some duty of the nature, which remains unperformed. 16. From the reading of the dispute the law has conferred a discretion upon the 1st Respondent that when it invites bidders to offer certain services to the government or to do a particular thing, it cannot exercise the discretion to make payment at whim or capriciously. The duty in question is imposed by Statute. It is for these reasons that I grant the application for the writ of mandamus against the 1st Respondent to settle the outstanding decretal amount of Kshs 2,798,256.00 with costs of this application”. 8.This judgment has not been complied with by the Respondent. The contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience and violence of orders of this Court dated 15th October 2025 by the Respondents and in causing serious loss and damage to the Applicants herein and therefore a need to punish the contemnors under the law and to pass such other orders in the interest of justice is necessary for the fair administration of justice. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that this order has been passed in favour of the Applicant and having been served upon the Respondents there has arisen a need to summon the named public Officers Philip Meli, the office holder of the 1st Respondent and Eliud Kipkorir Chemaget, the Office holder of the 2nd Respondent to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail. 9.What is the legal basis for this contempt proceedings? The Applicant has demonstrated that there is already a judgment of the Court and other processes of the Courts have been satisfied. Secondly, there is disobedience on the part of the Respondent not to honor the decree by giving proposals on settlement. Thirdly, that such a disobedience of the judgment and the decree without any evidence in rebuttal must be taken to be willful on the part of the Respondent. It is trite that the sanctity to judicial proceedings is paramount to a society like Kenya governed by law otherwise the very edifice of democracy breaks and anarchy reigns. The Court in the case of Hadkinson v. Hadkinson [1952 All ER 567] in which the Court of Appeal held:“It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by an order believes it to be irregular or even void. Lord Cottenham, L.C. said in Chuck v. Cremer: (1) (1 Coop. Temp. Cott. 342) (at p.342).`A party, who knows of an order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it....It would be most dangerous to hold that the suitors, or their solicitors, could themselves judge whether an order was null or valid-whether it was regular or irregular. That they should come to the court and not take upon themselves to determine such a question. That the course of a party knowing of an order, which was null or irregular, and who might be affected by it, was plain. He should apply to the court that it might be discharged. As long as it existed it must not be disobeyed.' Such being the nature of this obligation, two consequences will, in general follow from its breach. The first is that anyone who disobeys an order of the court (and I am not now considering disobedience of orders relating merely to TMD, J matters of procedure) is in contempt and may be punished by committal or attachment or otherwise. The second is that no application to the court by such a person will be entertained until he has purged himself of his contempt." 10.Kenya’s contempt proceedings derive constitutional backing and also the inherent jurisdiction of the Court which recognizes that Superior Courts of records punish for contempt as a legal foundation to secure the administration of justice against disruption by parties who willfully disobey Court orders. Contempt of Court is a legal mechanism designed to protect the authority of the Courts and ensure the effective administration of justice. 11.For those reasons, a notice to show cause under the penumbra of disobedience of Court Orders be issued to the Respondents Officers namely Officers Philip Meli, the office holder of the 1st Respondent and Eliud Kipkorir Chemaget, the Office holder of the 2nd Respondent why they should not be committed to civil jail for disobeying the ruling of this Court dated 15th October 2025 which proceedings shall be held on 17th June 2026 before this Court. DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 2026............................................R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE