1. The Ex-parte Applicant filed the Notice of Motion dated 28th January 2026 under the provisions of Order 53 Rule 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Section 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and section 148 of the Public Finance Management Act. He seeks the following orders: -
i. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an Order of Mandamus directed at the Respondents, namely the County Executive Committee Member for Finance, the Chief Officer for Finance and the County Secretary of the County Government of Turkana,
compelling them to pay the Ex parte Applicant forthwith and without delay the sum of Kshs. 13,771, I82.92 (Kenya Shillings Thirteen Million, Seven Hundred Seventy-One Thousand, One Hundred and Eighty-Two and Ninety-Two Cents Only) being the decretal amount, costs of the suit and interest in Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022 Formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018 Lawrence Obino Oigoro vs Turkana County Public Service Board and Turkana County Government.
ii. THAT costs of this application be provided for.
2. The grounds upon which the Judicial Review application is founded are set out on the face of the application. In sum, the Ex parte Applicant avers that he instituted Employment and Labour Relations Court Cause No. 11 of 2022 (formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018): Lawrence Obino Oigoro v Turkana County Public Service Board & Turkana County Government. The suit was heard and judgment delivered on 12th April 2024 in his favour, awarding him Kshs. 7,093,513 as salary arrears and allowances together with Kshs. 500,000 as general damages. A decree was subsequently issued on 22nd August 2025. The Applicant contends that the judgment has neither been set aside nor varied and therefore remains valid and enforceable.
3. The Ex parte Applicant further avers that his advocates filed a Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 20th February 2025 on 24th February 2025 which was taxed on 24th April 2025 at Kshs. 307,155 and a Certificate of Costs was thereafter issued on 20th June 2025. According to the Ex parte Applicant, the Respondents were duly served with the decree, court order, Certificate of Costs, Certificate of Order Against the Government and a demand for settlement of the decretal sum and taxed costs.
4. It is the Ex parte Applicant's case that despite having been served with the said documents and despite having full knowledge of the judgment and decree, the Respondents have deliberately, unjustifiably, and unlawfully failed, neglected, and/or refused to satisfy the decretal amount. He contends that the Respondents, being public officers charged with the management of the financial affairs of the County Government, are under a statutory and constitutional duty to satisfy lawful court decrees. It is the Ex parte Applicant’s case that the continued refusal of the Respondents to satisfy the lawful court decrees has denied him the enjoyment of the fruits of his judgment.
5. The Ex parte Applicant has urged the Court to issue an order compelling the Respondents to perform their statutory duty by settling the decretal sum together with the taxed costs.
6. The application is unopposed, as the Respondents did not file any response in opposition to the Ex parte Applicant’s case.
7. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, the application was disposed of by way of written submissions. The Ex-parte Applicant’s submissions are dated 9th June 2026. In those submissions, the Ex-parte Applicant identified the issues for determination to be: -
i. Whether the Respondents are under a statutory duty to settle the decretal amount and taxed costs in Kitale ELRC No.11 of 2022 formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018
ii. Whether an order of mandamus is the appropriate and available remedy in the circumstances.
8. On the first issue, the Ex parte Applicant submitted that the Respondents are public officers within the meaning of Article 260 of the Constitution and are charged with the management, control and expenditure of county funds pursuant to sections 103, 104, 148 and 149 of the Public Finance Management Act, 2012. That read together with section 21(3) and (4) of the Government Proceedings Act, these provisions impose upon the Respondents a statutory and constitutional obligation to satisfy lawful decrees issued against the County Government once a Certificate of Order against the Government has been duly issued.
9. The Ex parte Applicant in submitting that the Respondents bear the responsibility for satisfying court decrees against the Turkana County Government cited the decision in Republic v County Secretary, Nairobi City County & 3 Others Ex Parte Koceyo Advocate (2020) eKLR, where the Court held that the offices of the County Secretary, the County Executive Committee Member for Finance and the Chief Officer responsible for finance collectively bear responsibility for the settlement of decretal sums by virtue of their respective constitutional and statutory functions. The Ex parte Applicant also relied on the decision in Republic v County Secretary, Trans Nzoia County Government & Another Ex Parte Veteran Pharmaceuticals Limited (2019)eKLR and Soloh Worldwide Inter-Enterprises v County Secretary, Nairobi County & Another (2016) eKLR,
10. The Ex parte Applicant submitted that the Respondents, by virtue of the constitutional and statutory offices they occupy, are under a clear public duty to satisfy the decree, taxed costs and accrued interest arising from Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022 (formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018). It is submitted that their continued failure to discharge that obligation, despite the existence of a valid judgment and decree, constitutes a breach of that statutory duty and warrants the intervention of this Court.
11. Lastly, on the issue whether an order of mandamus is the appropriate and available remedy in the circumstances, the Ex Parte Applicant citing section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act submitted that once a decree and Certificate of Order against the Government have been duly obtained, the successful litigant is left without any other mechanism of enforcing the judgment save by way of an order of mandamus compelling the relevant accounting officers to satisfy the decree. In support of this position, the Ex-parte Applicant relied on the decisions in Republic v Kenya National Examinations Council Ex Parte Gathenji & 8 Others, Civil Appeal No. 234 of 1996, Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Internal Security & Another Ex Parte Schon Noorani & Another (2018) eKLR and Republic v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security Ex Parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza (2012) eKLR.
12. The Ex parte Applicant thus submitted that he had fully complied with the procedural requirements prescribed under section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act and in particular, that he obtained the decree, the Certificate of Costs, the Certificate of Order Against the Government and issued a formal demand for payment, all of which were duly served upon the Respondents.
13. The Ex parte Applicant contended that despite service of the requisite statutory documents and the substantive Notice of Motion, the Respondents failed, neglected and refused to settle the decretal amount or otherwise respond to his demand.
14. The Ex parte Applicant asserts that the judgment in Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022 (formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018) remains valid, unsatisfied and fully enforceable as the Respondents have neither challenged nor set aside the judgment, decree or certificates issued thereunder.
15. Consequently, the Ex parte Applicant submitted that he has established the existence of a valid and enforceable judgment, demonstrated the Respondents' statutory obligation to satisfy the decree, and proved their continued refusal to discharge that obligation despite full compliance with the requirements of section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
16. The Ex parte Applicant thus urged the Court to issue an order of mandamus compelling the Respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the sum of Kshs. 13,771,182.92. being the decretal amount together with the taxed costs and accrued interest in Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022 (formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018)
DETERMINATION
17. I have considered the Notice of Motion dated 28th January 2026, the affidavit in support and the written submissions filed on behalf of the Ex Parte Applicant. In my view, the issues that fall for my determination are: -
i. Whether the Respondents are under a statutory duty to satisfy the decree, taxed costs and accrued interest arising from Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022, formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018
ii. Whether an order of mandamus is the appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
Whether the Respondents are under a statutory duty to satisfy the decree, taxed costs and accrued interest arising from Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022, formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018
18. From the material placed before the Court, it is clear that judgment was entered in favour of the Ex Parte Applicant on 12th April 2024 in Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022, formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018, against the Turkana County Public Service Board and the County Government of Turkana. The Ex parte Applicant was awarded Kshs. 7,093,513 as salary arrears and allowances and Kshs. 500,000 as general damages.
19. A decree was subsequently issued on 22nd August 2025 and the Ex parte Applicant’s party-and-party Bill of Costs was taxed at Kshs. 307,155. Thereafter, a Certificate of Costs was issued on 20th June 2025.
20. From the record, it is also evident that the Ex parte Applicant thereafter obtained a Certificate of Order Against the Government and served the relevant documents, together with a demand for payment, upon the Respondents.
21. There is no evidence before the Court that the judgment, decree, Certificate of Costs or Certificate of Order Against the Government has been reviewed, varied, stayed or set aside. The decree therefore remains valid, binding and enforceable as rightly submitted by the Ex-parte Applicant.
22. Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act prescribes the procedure for the satisfaction of monetary decrees against the Government. It provides:
“(1)Where in any civil proceedings by or against the Government, or in proceedings in connection with any arbitration in which the Government is a party, any order (including an order for costs) is made by any court in favour of any person against the Government, or against a Government department, or against an officer of the Government as such, the proper officer of the court shall, on an application in that behalf made by or on behalf of that person at any time after the expiration of twenty-one days from the date of the order or, in case the order provides for the payment of costs and the costs require to be taxed, at any time after the costs have been taxed, whichever is the later, issue to that person a certificate in the prescribed form containing particulars of the order.
Provided that, if the court so directs, a separate certificate shall be issued with respect to the costs (if any) ordered to be paid to the applicant.”
23. Section 21 (3) thereof further provides:
“If the order provides for the payment of any money by way of damages or otherwise, or of any costs, the certificate shall state the amount so payable, and the Accounting Officer for the Government department concerned shall, subject as hereinafter provided, pay to the person entitled or to his advocate the amount appearing by the certificate to be due to him together with interest, if any, lawfully due thereon:
Provided that the court by which any such order as aforesaid is made or any court to which an appeal against the order lies may direct that, pending an appeal or otherwise, payment of the whole of any amount so payable, or any part thereof, shall be suspended, and if the certificate has not been issued may order any such direction to be inserted therein.”
24. These procedures are applicable to County Governments by dint of Section 21 (5) which provides:-
“This section shall, with necessary modifications, apply to any civil proceedings by or against a county government, or in any proceedings in connection with any arbitration in which a county government is a party.”
25. In addition, sections 103, 104, 148 and 149 of the Public Finance Management Act establish the County Treasury and provide for the designation and responsibilities of accounting officers. The County Executive Committee Member responsible for finance is the head of the County Treasury, while the relevant chief officers and accounting officers bear responsibility for the management and expenditure of county funds.
26. In Republic v County Secretary, Nairobi City County & 3 Others Ex Parte Koceyo Advocate (2020) eKLR, the Court held:-
“15. As to whether the Respondents herein are under a duty to pay the subject decretal sums, an order of mandamus is normally issued when an officer or an authority by compulsion of law or statute is required to perform a duty, and that duty, despite demand in writing, has not been performed. Execution proceedings against a government or public authority under the Government Proceedings Act can only be as against the accounting officer or chief officer of the said government or authority, who is under a statutory duty to satisfy a judgment made by the Court against that body. This was also the holding in Republic vs Permanent Secretary Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security (2012) where Githua J. held as follows:
“In ordinary circumstances, once a judgment has been entered in a civil suit in favour of one party against another and a decree is subsequently issued, the successful litigant is entitled to execute for the decretal amount even on the following day. When the Government is sued in a civil action through its legal representative by a citizen, it becomes a party just like any other party defending a civil suit. Similarly, when a judgment has been entered against the government and a monetary decree is issued against it, it does not enjoy any special privileges with regards to its liability to pay except when it comes to the mode of execution of the decree. Unlike in other civil proceedings, where decrees for the payment of money or costs had been issued against the Government in favour of a litigant, the said decree can only be enforced by way of an order of mandamus compelling the accounting officer in the relevant ministry to pay the decretal amount as the Government is protected and given immunity from execution and attachment of its property/goods under Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act. The only requirement which serves as a condition precedent to the satisfaction or enforcement of decrees for money issued against the Government is found in Section 21(1) and (2) of the Government Proceedings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which provides that payment will be based on a certificate of costs obtained by the successful litigant from the court issuing the decree which should be served on the Hon Attorney General. The certificate of order against the Government should be issued by the court after expiration of 21 days after entry of judgment. Once the certificate of order against the Government is served on the Hon Attorney General, Section 21(3) imposes a statutory duty on the accounting officer concerned to pay the sums specified in the said order to the person entitled or to his advocate together with any interest lawfully accruing thereon.”
16. Section 44 of the County Government Act in this respect establishes the office of the County Secretary who is secretary to the County Executive Committee, and is answerable for the operations of the County Executive, and whose functions include being head of the county public service. Section 103 of the Public Finance Management Act No 18 of 2012 also establishes the County Treasury comprising of the County Executive member of Finance, the Chief Officer and the departments of the County Treasury responsible for finance and fiscal matters. Under section 103(3) of the Act, the County Executive Committee Member for Finance is the head of Treasury, and is thus the responsible for finance matters in the County.”
27. Guided by the foregoing statutory framework and being persuaded by the cited authority, I am satisfied that the Respondents, by virtue of the offices they hold, are under a public and statutory duty to facilitate and ensure the satisfaction of the decree issued against the County Government of Turkana.
28. The Respondents have not filed any response disputing the decretal amount and neither have they challenged the documents relied upon by the Ex parte Applicant.
29. It is therefore my considered view that the continued failure by the Respondents to pay the Ex parte Applicant despite being served with the requisite documents and demand amounts to a failure to discharge a statutory duty.
Whether an order of mandamus is the appropriate remedy
30. The nature and scope of an order of mandamus were considered by the Court of Appeal in Republic v Kenya National Examinations Council Ex Parte Gathenji & 8 Others, Civil Appeal No. 234 of 1996 where it was held that a mandamus is an order issued to compel the performance of a public duty imposed by law where a person or public body has failed to perform that duty to the detriment of a person who has a legal right to expect its performance.
31. It is worth noting that an order of Mandamus does not create a duty but compels the performance of a duty which already exists. An applicant seeking the remedy must therefore demonstrate the existence of a clear public duty, a legal right to its performance, compliance with the applicable conditions precedent, a demand for performance and a failure or refusal by the public officer to perform the duty.
32. In Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Internal Security & Another Ex Parte Schon Noorani & Another (2018) eKLR, Mativo J (as he then was) identified the essential requirements for the grant of mandamus as follows:-
“29. Mandamus is an equitable remedy that serves to compel a public authority to perform its public legal duty and it is a remedy that controls procedural delays. The test for mandamus is set out in Apotex Inc. vs. Canada (Attorney General),[23] and, was also discussed in Dragan vs. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration).[24] The eight factors that must be present for the writ to issue are:-
(i) There must be a public legal duty to act;
(ii) The duty must be owed to the Applicants;
(iii) There must be a clear right to the performance of that duty, meaning that:
a. The Applicants have satisfied all conditions precedent; and
b. There must have been:
I. A prior demand for performance;
II. A reasonable time to comply with the demand, unless there was outright refusal; and
III. An express refusal, or an implied refusal through unreasonable delay;
(iv) No other adequate remedy is available to the Applicants;
(v) The Order sought must be of some practical value or effect;
(vi) There is no equitable bar to the relief sought;
(vii) On a balance of convenience, mandamus should lie.”
33. The Applicant herein obtained judgment and a decree, taxed his costs, obtained a Certificate of Costs and a Certificate of Order Against the Government. He has and served the requisite documents together with a demand for payment. However, the Respondents have failed to satisfy the decree.
34. Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act prohibits execution or attachment against Government property. The Ex parte Applicant is therefore unable to enforce the decree through the ordinary modes of execution available against private persons.
35. In Republic v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security Ex Parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza (2012) eKLR, the Court held:-
“ In ordinary circumstances, once a judgment has been entered in a civil suit in favour of one party against another and a decree is subsequently issued, the successful litigant is entitled to execute for the decretal amount even on the following day. When the Government is sued in a civil action through its legal representative by a citizen, it becomes a party just like any other party defending a civil suit. Similarly, when a judgment has been entered against the government and a monetary decree is issued against it, it does not enjoy any special privileges with regards to its liability to pay except when it comes to the mode of execution of the decree. Unlike in other civil proceedings, where decrees for the payment of money or costs had been issued against the Government in favour of a litigant, the said decree can only be enforced by way of an order of mandamus compelling the accounting officer in the relevant ministry to pay the decretal amount as the Government is protected and given immunity from execution and attachment of its property/goods under Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act.”
36. The Ex parte Applicant has therefore demonstrated that there is no other adequate or efficacious remedy available to him. Without an order of mandamus, he would continue to be unlawfully deprived of the fruits of a valid judgment.
37. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Ex parte Applicant has met the threshold for the grant of an order of mandamus. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 28th January 2026 is merited and is allowed in the following terms: -
i. An order of mandamus is hereby issued compelling the Respondents, in their respective official capacities as the County Executive Committee Member for Finance, the Chief Officer for Finance and the County Secretary of the County Government of Turkana, to satisfy the decree and Certificate of Order Against the Government arising from Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022, formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018, Lawrence Obino Oigoro v Turkana County Public Service Board and County Government of Turkana, together with the certified costs and lawful interest totaling to Kshs. 13,771,182.92
ii. The Ex parte Applicant is awarded the costs of the application.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED
THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026.
i. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an Order of Mandamus directed at the Respondents, namely the County Executive Committee Member for Finance, the Chief Officer for Finance and the County Secretary of the County Government of Turkana,
compelling them to pay the Ex parte Applicant forthwith and without delay the sum of Kshs. 13,771, I82.92 (Kenya Shillings Thirteen Million, Seven Hundred Seventy-One Thousand, One Hundred and Eighty-Two and Ninety-Two Cents Only) being the decretal amount, costs of the suit and interest in Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022 Formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018 Lawrence Obino Oigoro vs Turkana County Public Service Board and Turkana County Government.
ii. THAT costs of this application be provided for.
2. The grounds upon which the Judicial Review application is founded are set out on the face of the application. In sum, the Ex parte Applicant avers that he instituted Employment and Labour Relations Court Cause No. 11 of 2022 (formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018): Lawrence Obino Oigoro v Turkana County Public Service Board & Turkana County Government. The suit was heard and judgment delivered on 12th April 2024 in his favour, awarding him Kshs. 7,093,513 as salary arrears and allowances together with Kshs. 500,000 as general damages. A decree was subsequently issued on 22nd August 2025. The Applicant contends that the judgment has neither been set aside nor varied and therefore remains valid and enforceable.
3. The Ex parte Applicant further avers that his advocates filed a Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 20th February 2025 on 24th February 2025 which was taxed on 24th April 2025 at Kshs. 307,155 and a Certificate of Costs was thereafter issued on 20th June 2025. According to the Ex parte Applicant, the Respondents were duly served with the decree, court order, Certificate of Costs, Certificate of Order Against the Government and a demand for settlement of the decretal sum and taxed costs.
4. It is the Ex parte Applicant's case that despite having been served with the said documents and despite having full knowledge of the judgment and decree, the Respondents have deliberately, unjustifiably, and unlawfully failed, neglected, and/or refused to satisfy the decretal amount. He contends that the Respondents, being public officers charged with the management of the financial affairs of the County Government, are under a statutory and constitutional duty to satisfy lawful court decrees. It is the Ex parte Applicant’s case that the continued refusal of the Respondents to satisfy the lawful court decrees has denied him the enjoyment of the fruits of his judgment.
5. The Ex parte Applicant has urged the Court to issue an order compelling the Respondents to perform their statutory duty by settling the decretal sum together with the taxed costs.
6. The application is unopposed, as the Respondents did not file any response in opposition to the Ex parte Applicant’s case.
7. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, the application was disposed of by way of written submissions. The Ex-parte Applicant’s submissions are dated 9th June 2026. In those submissions, the Ex-parte Applicant identified the issues for determination to be: -
i. Whether the Respondents are under a statutory duty to settle the decretal amount and taxed costs in Kitale ELRC No.11 of 2022 formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018
ii. Whether an order of mandamus is the appropriate and available remedy in the circumstances.
8. On the first issue, the Ex parte Applicant submitted that the Respondents are public officers within the meaning of Article 260 of the Constitution and are charged with the management, control and expenditure of county funds pursuant to sections 103, 104, 148 and 149 of the Public Finance Management Act, 2012. That read together with section 21(3) and (4) of the Government Proceedings Act, these provisions impose upon the Respondents a statutory and constitutional obligation to satisfy lawful decrees issued against the County Government once a Certificate of Order against the Government has been duly issued.
9. The Ex parte Applicant in submitting that the Respondents bear the responsibility for satisfying court decrees against the Turkana County Government cited the decision in Republic v County Secretary, Nairobi City County & 3 Others Ex Parte Koceyo Advocate (2020) eKLR, where the Court held that the offices of the County Secretary, the County Executive Committee Member for Finance and the Chief Officer responsible for finance collectively bear responsibility for the settlement of decretal sums by virtue of their respective constitutional and statutory functions. The Ex parte Applicant also relied on the decision in Republic v County Secretary, Trans Nzoia County Government & Another Ex Parte Veteran Pharmaceuticals Limited (2019)eKLR and Soloh Worldwide Inter-Enterprises v County Secretary, Nairobi County & Another (2016) eKLR,
10. The Ex parte Applicant submitted that the Respondents, by virtue of the constitutional and statutory offices they occupy, are under a clear public duty to satisfy the decree, taxed costs and accrued interest arising from Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022 (formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018). It is submitted that their continued failure to discharge that obligation, despite the existence of a valid judgment and decree, constitutes a breach of that statutory duty and warrants the intervention of this Court.
11. Lastly, on the issue whether an order of mandamus is the appropriate and available remedy in the circumstances, the Ex Parte Applicant citing section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act submitted that once a decree and Certificate of Order against the Government have been duly obtained, the successful litigant is left without any other mechanism of enforcing the judgment save by way of an order of mandamus compelling the relevant accounting officers to satisfy the decree. In support of this position, the Ex-parte Applicant relied on the decisions in Republic v Kenya National Examinations Council Ex Parte Gathenji & 8 Others, Civil Appeal No. 234 of 1996, Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Internal Security & Another Ex Parte Schon Noorani & Another (2018) eKLR and Republic v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security Ex Parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza (2012) eKLR.
12. The Ex parte Applicant thus submitted that he had fully complied with the procedural requirements prescribed under section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act and in particular, that he obtained the decree, the Certificate of Costs, the Certificate of Order Against the Government and issued a formal demand for payment, all of which were duly served upon the Respondents.
13. The Ex parte Applicant contended that despite service of the requisite statutory documents and the substantive Notice of Motion, the Respondents failed, neglected and refused to settle the decretal amount or otherwise respond to his demand.
14. The Ex parte Applicant asserts that the judgment in Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022 (formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018) remains valid, unsatisfied and fully enforceable as the Respondents have neither challenged nor set aside the judgment, decree or certificates issued thereunder.
15. Consequently, the Ex parte Applicant submitted that he has established the existence of a valid and enforceable judgment, demonstrated the Respondents' statutory obligation to satisfy the decree, and proved their continued refusal to discharge that obligation despite full compliance with the requirements of section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
16. The Ex parte Applicant thus urged the Court to issue an order of mandamus compelling the Respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the sum of Kshs. 13,771,182.92. being the decretal amount together with the taxed costs and accrued interest in Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022 (formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018)
DETERMINATION
17. I have considered the Notice of Motion dated 28th January 2026, the affidavit in support and the written submissions filed on behalf of the Ex Parte Applicant. In my view, the issues that fall for my determination are: -
i. Whether the Respondents are under a statutory duty to satisfy the decree, taxed costs and accrued interest arising from Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022, formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018
ii. Whether an order of mandamus is the appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
Whether the Respondents are under a statutory duty to satisfy the decree, taxed costs and accrued interest arising from Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022, formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018
18. From the material placed before the Court, it is clear that judgment was entered in favour of the Ex Parte Applicant on 12th April 2024 in Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022, formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018, against the Turkana County Public Service Board and the County Government of Turkana. The Ex parte Applicant was awarded Kshs. 7,093,513 as salary arrears and allowances and Kshs. 500,000 as general damages.
19. A decree was subsequently issued on 22nd August 2025 and the Ex parte Applicant’s party-and-party Bill of Costs was taxed at Kshs. 307,155. Thereafter, a Certificate of Costs was issued on 20th June 2025.
20. From the record, it is also evident that the Ex parte Applicant thereafter obtained a Certificate of Order Against the Government and served the relevant documents, together with a demand for payment, upon the Respondents.
21. There is no evidence before the Court that the judgment, decree, Certificate of Costs or Certificate of Order Against the Government has been reviewed, varied, stayed or set aside. The decree therefore remains valid, binding and enforceable as rightly submitted by the Ex-parte Applicant.
22. Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act prescribes the procedure for the satisfaction of monetary decrees against the Government. It provides:
“(1)Where in any civil proceedings by or against the Government, or in proceedings in connection with any arbitration in which the Government is a party, any order (including an order for costs) is made by any court in favour of any person against the Government, or against a Government department, or against an officer of the Government as such, the proper officer of the court shall, on an application in that behalf made by or on behalf of that person at any time after the expiration of twenty-one days from the date of the order or, in case the order provides for the payment of costs and the costs require to be taxed, at any time after the costs have been taxed, whichever is the later, issue to that person a certificate in the prescribed form containing particulars of the order.
Provided that, if the court so directs, a separate certificate shall be issued with respect to the costs (if any) ordered to be paid to the applicant.”
23. Section 21 (3) thereof further provides:
“If the order provides for the payment of any money by way of damages or otherwise, or of any costs, the certificate shall state the amount so payable, and the Accounting Officer for the Government department concerned shall, subject as hereinafter provided, pay to the person entitled or to his advocate the amount appearing by the certificate to be due to him together with interest, if any, lawfully due thereon:
Provided that the court by which any such order as aforesaid is made or any court to which an appeal against the order lies may direct that, pending an appeal or otherwise, payment of the whole of any amount so payable, or any part thereof, shall be suspended, and if the certificate has not been issued may order any such direction to be inserted therein.”
24. These procedures are applicable to County Governments by dint of Section 21 (5) which provides:-
“This section shall, with necessary modifications, apply to any civil proceedings by or against a county government, or in any proceedings in connection with any arbitration in which a county government is a party.”
25. In addition, sections 103, 104, 148 and 149 of the Public Finance Management Act establish the County Treasury and provide for the designation and responsibilities of accounting officers. The County Executive Committee Member responsible for finance is the head of the County Treasury, while the relevant chief officers and accounting officers bear responsibility for the management and expenditure of county funds.
26. In Republic v County Secretary, Nairobi City County & 3 Others Ex Parte Koceyo Advocate (2020) eKLR, the Court held:-
“15. As to whether the Respondents herein are under a duty to pay the subject decretal sums, an order of mandamus is normally issued when an officer or an authority by compulsion of law or statute is required to perform a duty, and that duty, despite demand in writing, has not been performed. Execution proceedings against a government or public authority under the Government Proceedings Act can only be as against the accounting officer or chief officer of the said government or authority, who is under a statutory duty to satisfy a judgment made by the Court against that body. This was also the holding in Republic vs Permanent Secretary Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security (2012) where Githua J. held as follows:
“In ordinary circumstances, once a judgment has been entered in a civil suit in favour of one party against another and a decree is subsequently issued, the successful litigant is entitled to execute for the decretal amount even on the following day. When the Government is sued in a civil action through its legal representative by a citizen, it becomes a party just like any other party defending a civil suit. Similarly, when a judgment has been entered against the government and a monetary decree is issued against it, it does not enjoy any special privileges with regards to its liability to pay except when it comes to the mode of execution of the decree. Unlike in other civil proceedings, where decrees for the payment of money or costs had been issued against the Government in favour of a litigant, the said decree can only be enforced by way of an order of mandamus compelling the accounting officer in the relevant ministry to pay the decretal amount as the Government is protected and given immunity from execution and attachment of its property/goods under Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act. The only requirement which serves as a condition precedent to the satisfaction or enforcement of decrees for money issued against the Government is found in Section 21(1) and (2) of the Government Proceedings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which provides that payment will be based on a certificate of costs obtained by the successful litigant from the court issuing the decree which should be served on the Hon Attorney General. The certificate of order against the Government should be issued by the court after expiration of 21 days after entry of judgment. Once the certificate of order against the Government is served on the Hon Attorney General, Section 21(3) imposes a statutory duty on the accounting officer concerned to pay the sums specified in the said order to the person entitled or to his advocate together with any interest lawfully accruing thereon.”
16. Section 44 of the County Government Act in this respect establishes the office of the County Secretary who is secretary to the County Executive Committee, and is answerable for the operations of the County Executive, and whose functions include being head of the county public service. Section 103 of the Public Finance Management Act No 18 of 2012 also establishes the County Treasury comprising of the County Executive member of Finance, the Chief Officer and the departments of the County Treasury responsible for finance and fiscal matters. Under section 103(3) of the Act, the County Executive Committee Member for Finance is the head of Treasury, and is thus the responsible for finance matters in the County.”
27. Guided by the foregoing statutory framework and being persuaded by the cited authority, I am satisfied that the Respondents, by virtue of the offices they hold, are under a public and statutory duty to facilitate and ensure the satisfaction of the decree issued against the County Government of Turkana.
28. The Respondents have not filed any response disputing the decretal amount and neither have they challenged the documents relied upon by the Ex parte Applicant.
29. It is therefore my considered view that the continued failure by the Respondents to pay the Ex parte Applicant despite being served with the requisite documents and demand amounts to a failure to discharge a statutory duty.
Whether an order of mandamus is the appropriate remedy
30. The nature and scope of an order of mandamus were considered by the Court of Appeal in Republic v Kenya National Examinations Council Ex Parte Gathenji & 8 Others, Civil Appeal No. 234 of 1996 where it was held that a mandamus is an order issued to compel the performance of a public duty imposed by law where a person or public body has failed to perform that duty to the detriment of a person who has a legal right to expect its performance.
31. It is worth noting that an order of Mandamus does not create a duty but compels the performance of a duty which already exists. An applicant seeking the remedy must therefore demonstrate the existence of a clear public duty, a legal right to its performance, compliance with the applicable conditions precedent, a demand for performance and a failure or refusal by the public officer to perform the duty.
32. In Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Internal Security & Another Ex Parte Schon Noorani & Another (2018) eKLR, Mativo J (as he then was) identified the essential requirements for the grant of mandamus as follows:-
“29. Mandamus is an equitable remedy that serves to compel a public authority to perform its public legal duty and it is a remedy that controls procedural delays. The test for mandamus is set out in Apotex Inc. vs. Canada (Attorney General),[23] and, was also discussed in Dragan vs. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration).[24] The eight factors that must be present for the writ to issue are:-
(i) There must be a public legal duty to act;
(ii) The duty must be owed to the Applicants;
(iii) There must be a clear right to the performance of that duty, meaning that:
a. The Applicants have satisfied all conditions precedent; and
b. There must have been:
I. A prior demand for performance;
II. A reasonable time to comply with the demand, unless there was outright refusal; and
III. An express refusal, or an implied refusal through unreasonable delay;
(iv) No other adequate remedy is available to the Applicants;
(v) The Order sought must be of some practical value or effect;
(vi) There is no equitable bar to the relief sought;
(vii) On a balance of convenience, mandamus should lie.”
33. The Applicant herein obtained judgment and a decree, taxed his costs, obtained a Certificate of Costs and a Certificate of Order Against the Government. He has and served the requisite documents together with a demand for payment. However, the Respondents have failed to satisfy the decree.
34. Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act prohibits execution or attachment against Government property. The Ex parte Applicant is therefore unable to enforce the decree through the ordinary modes of execution available against private persons.
35. In Republic v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security Ex Parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza (2012) eKLR, the Court held:-
“ In ordinary circumstances, once a judgment has been entered in a civil suit in favour of one party against another and a decree is subsequently issued, the successful litigant is entitled to execute for the decretal amount even on the following day. When the Government is sued in a civil action through its legal representative by a citizen, it becomes a party just like any other party defending a civil suit. Similarly, when a judgment has been entered against the government and a monetary decree is issued against it, it does not enjoy any special privileges with regards to its liability to pay except when it comes to the mode of execution of the decree. Unlike in other civil proceedings, where decrees for the payment of money or costs had been issued against the Government in favour of a litigant, the said decree can only be enforced by way of an order of mandamus compelling the accounting officer in the relevant ministry to pay the decretal amount as the Government is protected and given immunity from execution and attachment of its property/goods under Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act.”
36. The Ex parte Applicant has therefore demonstrated that there is no other adequate or efficacious remedy available to him. Without an order of mandamus, he would continue to be unlawfully deprived of the fruits of a valid judgment.
37. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Ex parte Applicant has met the threshold for the grant of an order of mandamus. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 28th January 2026 is merited and is allowed in the following terms: -
i. An order of mandamus is hereby issued compelling the Respondents, in their respective official capacities as the County Executive Committee Member for Finance, the Chief Officer for Finance and the County Secretary of the County Government of Turkana, to satisfy the decree and Certificate of Order Against the Government arising from Kitale ELRC No. 11 of 2022, formerly Eldoret ELRC No. 267 of 2018, Lawrence Obino Oigoro v Turkana County Public Service Board and County Government of Turkana, together with the certified costs and lawful interest totaling to Kshs. 13,771,182.92
ii. The Ex parte Applicant is awarded the costs of the application.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED
THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026.