Telenodech Agencies Ltd & 3 others v Attorney General & 2 others (Judicial Review E057 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8689 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (18 June 2026) (Ruling)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION** **HCJR E057 OF 2026** **BETWEEN** **TELENODECH AGENCIES LTD………………………1ST APPLICANT** **INTERFUSION COMPANY LTD………………………2ND APPLICANT** **FRATRADE AGENCIES LIMITED………………..…3RD APPLICANT** **FRANCIS MUIRURI SILVESTER …………………. 4TH APPLICANT** **AND** **THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL…………….…1ST RESPONDENT** **THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE…………………………………….…………2ND RESPONDENT** **THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, NATIONAL TREASURY ………………………………………………………….. 3RD RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. By a Chamber Summons application dated 2nd March 2026, the Applicant moved this honourable court seeking leave to apply for an Order of MANDAMUS directed at the 1st Respondent (The Hon. Attorney General), the 2nd Respondent (The Director General, National Youth Service),and the 3rd Respondent (The Principal Secretary, The National Treasury), compelling them to jointly and/or severally process, facilitate, and unconditionally pay the sum Of Kenya Shillings Seventy-Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Ninety-Four Thousand, Seventy-Two Shillings and Eighty Cents (Kshs. 78,894,072.80/-). 2. The Applicant sought that the leave so granted operates as stay any further extra-judicial verification, audit, or bureaucratic delay mechanisms by the Respondents regarding the settled and decreed debt. 3. The Application was supported by a Statutory Statement of even date and the verifying affidavit of FRANCIS MUIRURI SYLVESTER brought on grounds that the Applicant is the holder of a decree issued on 7th October 2024, against the Respondent following a suit instituted in HC. COMM. SUIT NO E463 OF 2019. 4. Notwithstanding demand and service, the Respondent has declined to satisfy the said Decree. Leaving the Applicants with no other option but to institute judicial review orders of mandamus against the Respondent. 5. No submissions have been filed in this application. **Analysis and Determination;** 1. I have considered the pleadings by the Applicants and the main issue for determination is whether the Applicant has made a case to warrant rant of the reliefs sought. 2. The applicable law on leave to commence judicial review proceedings is Order 53 Rule 1of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides that no Application for judicial review orders should be made unless leave of the court was sought and granted. 3. The reason for the leave was explained by Waki J (as he then was), in **Republic v County Council of Kwale & Another Exparte Kondo & 57 Others, Mombasa HCMCA No. 384 of 1996** as follows: *“The purpose of Application for leave to apply for judicial review is firstly to eliminate at an early stage any Applications for judicial review which are either frivolous, vexatious or hopeless and secondly to ensure that the Applicant is only allowed to proceed to substantive hearing if the Court is satisfied that there is a case fit for further consideration. The requirement that leave must be obtained before making an Application for judicial review is designed to prevent the time of the court being wasted by busy bodies with misguided or trivial complaints or administrative error, and to remove the uncertainty in which public officers and authorities might be left as to whether they could safely proceed with administrative action while proceedings for judicial review of it were actually pending even though misconceived…Leave may only be granted therefore if on the material available the court is of the view, without going into the matter in depth, that there is an arguable case for granting the relief claimed by the Applicant the test being whether there is a case fit for further investigation at a full interpartes hearing of the substantive Application for judicial review. It is an exercise of the court’s discretion but as always it has to be exercised judicially.”* 1. It is also trite that in an application for leave, the Court ought not to delve deeply into the arguments of the parties, but should make cursory perusal of the evidence before court and make the decision as to whether an Applicant’s case is sufficiently meritorious to justify leave. 2. Before grant of leave, it is crucial to establish that the case is arguable without delving into the merits of the arguments of the parties as held in the case of **Republic vs. Land Disputes Tribunal Court Central Division and Another Ex Parte Nzioka [20061 1 EA 321** where the court held: *“That leave should be granted, if on the material available the court considers, without going into the matter in depth, that there is an arguable case for granting leave.”* 1. A perusal of the pleadings demonstrates that the Applicants obtained a Court decree that is to be enforced through institution of judicial review orders of mandamus. In ***Republic V Attorney General Exparte James Alfred Koroso JR 44/2012*** Odunga J (as he then was in the High Court) added his voice to the question of how a decree against the Government can be settled through execution process and stated: *“…in the present case, the Exparte applicant has no other option of realizing the fruits of this judgment since he is barred from executing against the Government. Apart from mandamus, he has no option of ensuring that the judgment that he has been awarded is realized. Unless something is done, he will forever be left babysitting his barren decree. This state of affairs cannot be allowed to prevail under out current constitutional dispensation in light of provisions of Article 48 of*[*the Constitution*](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution)*which enjoins the state to ensure access to justice for all persons. Access to justice cannot be said to have been ensured when persons in whose favour judgments have been decreed by courts of competent jurisdiction cannot enjoy the fruits of their judgments due to road blocks placed on their paths by actions or inactions of public officers. Public offices, it must be remembered, are held in trust for the people of Kenya and public officers must carry out their duties for the benefit of the people of the Republic of Kenya. To deny a citizen his or her lawful rights which have been decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction is, in my view, unacceptable in a democratic society.”* 1. From the above statutory and judicial pronouncements, which restate the law, it is clear that the only remedy available to such a decree holder as the *Exparte* applicant herein against the Government is judicial review remedy of mandamus to compel the Accounting Officer of the relevant Ministry or State Department to settle the material decree. 2. It is expected that judgment debtors settle decrees once judgment is rendered. In this case, the law provides that where there is no payment made, only mandamus can issue to ensure that justice may eventually be served because there is no other remedy available to the decree holder/applicant. 3. The upshot is that the Applicant’s application for grant of leave to commence judicial proceedings against the Respondents is merited. 4. As to whether leave should operate as stay I have taken into account the position taken in **[Taib A Taib v The Minister for Local Government & Others Mombasa HCMISCA No 158 of 2006](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2006/3166%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank)** that: *“The purpose of a stay order in judicial review proceedings is to prevent the decision maker from continuing with the decision making process if the decision has not been made or to suspend the validity and implementation of the decision that has been made and it is not limited to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings as it encompasses the administrative decision-making process being undertaken by a public body such as a local authority or minister and the implementation of the decision of such a body if it has been taken.”* 1. The Applicants have not demonstrated any decision that the Respondents have made or intend to make that would warrant an order of stay. Instead, the Applicants prayer for stay is broad, vague and ambiguous and does not fall within the ambit of conduct for which a stay order applies. I therefore decline to grant the order that the leave granted herein do operate as stay. 2. The upshot of the matter is that the Application dated 2nd March 2026 is disposed as follows: 3. ***The Applicants are hereby granted leave to apply for an Order of MANDAMUS directed at the 1st Respondent (The Hon. Attorney General), the 2nd Respondent (The Director General, National Youth Service),and the 3rd Respondent (The Principal Secretary, The National Treasury), compelling them to jointly and/or severally process, facilitate, and unconditionally pay the sum Of Kenya Shillings Seventy-Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Ninety-Four Thousand, Seventy-Two Shillings and Eighty Cents (Kshs. 78,894,072.80/-)*** 4. ***The Substantive motion to be filed within 14 days from the date of this motion*** 5. ***The costs of this Application to abide in the outcome of the main motion.*** **Dated, Signed and Delivered Virtually on this 18th day of June, 2026.** **HON. T. W. OUYA, OGW** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Nyakiti for Kamande for the Applicants Nyabuto – Court Assistant