https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12211

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **MILIMANI LAW COURTS** **JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. E063 OF 2026** **REPUBLIC……………………………………….…………………………….……….APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,** **FOR INTERIOR AND NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION……...…1ST RESPONDENT** **THE ATTORNEY GENERAL………………………………...…………..2ND RESPONDENT** ***EX-PARTE*: *EDWARD AKONG’O OYUGI, KAMONJI WACHIRA AND JOSEPH OTIENO MALO*** **JUDGEMENT** 1. The *ex parte* applicants have moved this court by way of a motion, dated 5th March 2026, in which they seek an order of *mandamus*, to compel the respondents to satisfy a decree and judgement obtained, in Nairobi HC Petition No. 441 of 2015, on 11th February 2019, where the *ex parte* applicants were awarded a sum of Kshs. 87,633,232.00. A bill of costs was taxed on 28th July 2025, for Kshs. 1,626,596.00. A decree was extracted, dated 17th September 2019. A certificate of costs was also obtained, dated 31st July 2025. A certificate of order against the government was also processed, dated 1st August 2025. 2. The respondents have reacted to that application, vide an affidavit sworn on 29th June 2026, by Mr. Kepha Onyiso, a legal officer in one of the respondents. The decree and the costs are acknowledged. It is explained that settlement has been delayed because of problems on the side of the *ex parte* applicants, something to do with a dispute between the *ex parte* applicants and their Advocates, or amongst their Advocates. 3. Mr. Julius Juma, the Advocate for the *ex parte* applicants, has countered that, in his affidavit sworn on 2nd July 2026, describing the assertion that the delay in settlement of the decree was caused by a disagreement between the *ex parte* applicants and their Advocates, or amongst their Advocates, as an excuse to avoid settling the decree. He has given a detailed account of the background to explain that the failure by the respondents to settle the decree had nothing to do with the *ex parte* applicants. 4. The Government Proceedings Act, Cap. 40, Laws of Kenya, sets out a special procedure for suits involving the Government. Under section 21 of the Act, once a judgement is entered against the Government, the successful party is required to obtain a certificate of order against the Government, and to serve it upon the relevant accounting officer for payment. Notably, the law does not permit the usual methods of execution, such as attachment of property or seizure of assets. This position is not accidental, as it reflects a deliberate policy choice to protect public resources, and ensure that essential Government functions are not disrupted. See *Kisya Investments Ltd vs. Attorney General & another* [2005] eKLR [2005] KEHC 3226 (KLR). 5. In such cases, as this one, the proper procedure is to institute separate proceedings for judicial review, by way of the order of *mandamus*, to compel payment, since there is no other remedy available to the decree-holder. In *Republic vs. Attorney General & Another Ex parte James Alfred Koros* (2013) eKLR, the court stated that where a judgement has been obtained against the Government, and the Government fails to pay the decretal sum, an aggrieved party is entitled to seek an order of *mandamus*, to compel the accounting officer to pay. See *Kenya National Examinations Council; GGN & 9 others (Ex parte) vs. Republic* [1997] KECA 58 (KLR), *R(Regina) vs. Dudsheath, ex parte Meredith* [1950] 2 ALL ER 741, *Republic vs. Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security ex parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza*[2012] eKLR and *Muciimi Mbaka & Co. Advocates vs. Town Clerk, City Council of Nairobi* (2012) eKLR.It is clear that the *mandamus* is a compelling order, directed at a public body, to fulfil its statutory duties. 6. In this case, I find that the *ex parte* applicants have satisfied the conditions for grant of the order of *mandamus*. The decree and certificate of order against the Government were obtained, and served upon the respondents, but the decretal amount, of Kshs. 89,259,828.00, remains unsettled. 7. To this end, I shall allow, as I hereby do, the motion, dated 5th March 2026, and order as follows: 8. **An Order of *mandamus* be and is hereby issued, compelling the respondents to satisfy the outstanding sum of Kshs. 89,259,828.00, being the decretal amount as per the certificate of Order against the Government, dated 1st August 2025, and the taxed costs;** 9. **In default of compliance, the *ex parte* applicants shall be at liberty to move the court for consequential orders against the respondents; and** 10. **The *ex parte* applicants are awarded costs of this application, to be taxed.** **DELIVERED VIA CTS, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT MILIMANI, NAIROBI, ON THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY 2026.** **W MUSYOKA** **JUDGE** **Mr. Abdirahman, Court Assistant.** **Advocates** **Mr. Juma, instructed by Julius Juma & Company, Advocates for the *ex parte* applicants.** **Mr. Ali, instructed by the Attorney General, for the respondents.**