BM Mung’ata & Company Advocates v County Government of Machakos (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E020 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 13606 (KLR) (30 September 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEHC 13606 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E020 of 2024
RC Rutto, J
September 30, 2025
Between
BM Mung’ata & Company Advocates
Applicant
and
The County Government of Machakos
Respondent
Judgment
1.Before this Court for determination is a Notice of Motion dated 24th December 2024, brought pursuant to leave earlier granted by the Court on 5th February 2025. The application is anchored on Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2.The ex parte applicant, B.M. Mung’ata & Company Advocates, seeks an order of mandamus compelling the Respondent to satisfy the decretal amounts in the following matters:a.Kshs.3,091,891/= being the outstanding decretal sum in Machakos High Court Misc. Application No. 125 of 2020, arising from Machakos High Court Constitutional Petition No. 19 of 2018;b.Kshs.1,357,258/= being the outstanding decretal sum in Machakos High Court Misc. Application No. 112 of 2020, arising from Machakos High Court Constitutional Petition No. 19 of 2019;c.Kshs.682,176.67/= being the outstanding decretal sum in Machakos High Court Misc. Application No. 108 of 2020, arising from Machakos High Court Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2017;d.Kshs.484,760/= being the outstanding decretal sum in Machakos High Court Misc. Application No. 121 of 2020, arising from Machakos High Court Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2017; ande.Kshs.422,950/= being the outstanding decretal sum in Machakos High Court Misc. Application No. 5 of 2020, arising from Machakos High Court Judicial Review Application No. 69 of 2019.
The Applicant also prays for costs of this application.
3.The factual background is not in dispute. The decrees were issued in the respective matters on various dated between November 2022 and March 2024 as follows; In Machakos High Court Misc. Application No. 125 of 2020, the decretal sum as per the decree dated 7th November 2022 against the Respondent is Kshs.3,091,891/=. In Machakos Misc. Application No. 112 of 2020, the decretal sum as per the decree dated 5th March 2024 is Kshs.1,357,258/=. In Machakos Misc. Application No. 108 of 2020, the decretal sum as per the decree dated 22nd March 2023 is Kshs.682,176.67. In Machakos Misc. Application No. 121 of 2020, the decretal sum as per the decree dated 7th November 2022 is Kshs.484,760/=. Lastly, in Machakos Misc. Application No. 5 of 2020, the decretal sum as per the decree dated 16th March 2023 is Kshs.422,950/=.
4.The Applicant contends that, despite service of the decrees and repeated demands for payment, the Respondent has declined and/or neglected to settle the amounts due.
5.The Applicant urges this Court to grant the orders sought.
6.It is noteworthy that this matter was mention severally. However, the Respondent despite attending court and being granted leave to file their response failed to do so. The matter was eventually fixed for hearing by consent. When the application came up for hearing on 16th June 2025, the Respondent had still not filed any response. As such the application proceeded as unopposed
Analysis and Determination
7.Having considered the application, the supporting affidavit, annexures, and applicable law, the sole issue for determination is whether the Applicant is entitled to the relief ought.
8.The law governing the grant of the order of mandamus is well settled. In Republic v Attorney General & Another Ex parte James Alfred Koroso [2013] eKLR, the Court held that that where a judgment 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. The government cannot evade its legal obligations under the guise of internal financial constraints. The Court in that case further emphasized as follows;
9.Similarly, in Republic v Kenya National Examinations Council ex parte Gathengi & 8 Others Civil Appeal No 234 of 1996. The Court of Appeal cited, with approval, Halsbury’s Law of England, 4th Edn. Vol. 7 p. 111 para 89 which defines mandamus as:
10.The requirements for an order of mandamus were further explained in Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Internal Security & another ex parte Schon Noorani & Another [2018] eKLR as follows:
11.In the instant case, the applicant has satisfied all conditions precedent to the grant of the order:a.A valid decree has been obtained against the County Government which has been annexed to the application.b.They were served upon the Respondentd.There is a demand letter 2nd May 2023 demanding settlement of the monies in the several decrees and a reminder letter dated 12th February 2024. There is consensus that the money remains unpaid.
12.In the circumstances and having considered all relevant material in the application, I find no reason why I should decline to enter judgment in favour of the Applicant herein as prayed. The Respondent has failed to discharge its public duty to satisfy the decrees, and the Applicant has no other adequate remedy.
13.Accordingly, I hereby allow the application by the ex parte applicant and grant the orders sought in the substantive application dated 24th December 2024. I award the applicant costs.Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MACHAKOS THIS 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 RHODA RUTTO JUDGEIn the presence of;………………………… for Applicant………………………… for RespondentSelina Court Assistant