1. By an ex parte Chamber Summons dated 25th August 2025, the applicant seeks the following orders:
1) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to extend time for filing these judicial review proceedings for an order of mandamus beyond the statutory time of six months;
2) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave to the ex parte applicant to apply for judicial review for an order of mandamus to issue to compel the County Secretary in the County Government of Machakos to pay the ex parte applicant decretal sum of Kshs. 595,474.82 being the judgment sum, interest and costs awarded in Mavoko MCCC No. 847 of 2020 – Multi Supplier Limited vs. County Government of Machakos;
3) THAT the costs of this application be in favor of the applicant.
2. The application is brought under order 53, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is supported by the grounds set out in the body of the Summons, together with the supporting affidavit of Charles Chege, the applicant’s director, sworn on 25th August 2025. A statutory statement of the same date is also annexed. To contextualize the application, an brief background of the facts as set out in the application in necessary.
3. The applicant, avers that it instituted proceedings against the respondent in Mavoko MCCC No. 847 of 2020 – Multi Supplier Limited vs. County Government of Machakos. On 24th May 2021, judgment was entered in favor of the applicant against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 595,474.82. Subsequently, on 5th July 2021, the applicant wrote to the court registry requesting the issuance of the decree in order to commence execution. On 27th July 2021, the applicant served the respondent with a notice of entry of judgment dated 14th July 2021.
4. After numerous follow ups with the court registry, the applicant contends that it only managed to access the court file on 10th February 2025. Thereafter, the applicant lodged a Notice of Motion dated 4th February 2025 seeking issuance of a certificate of order and a certificate of order for costs against the government. This application was allowed by the trial court on 19th March 2025.
5. The applicant was issued with a decree on 25th March 2025 which was served upon the respondent on 23rd April 2025. Seven days later, the applicant was issued with a certificate of order for costs against the government which was served upon the respondent on 25th August 2025.
6. For those reasons, the applicant urged this court to grant the reliefs sought, submitting that the delay had been sufficiently explained. It further contends that it is in the interest of justice that the orders sought are granted.
7. This is an ex parte application. Consequently, the respondent did not file any response. Although the applicant had been directed to file written submissions, by the time I retired to write this ruling, none had been received. Nonetheless, I have considered the applicant and the documents in support and analyzed the law.
8. The applicant firstly seeks leave to commence judicial proceedings out of time for purposes of enforcing the decree arising from Mavoko MCCC No. 847 of 2020 – Multi Supplier Limited vs. County Government of Machakos. In that matter, judgment was entered in favor of the applicant on 24th May 2021 for the sum of Kshs. 595,474.82.
9. The procedure for execution of decrees against the Government is set out under section 21 of Government Proceedings Act, which also applies to County Government pursuant to section 21 (5) of the Act. The applicant seeks leave to file these proceedings out of time, contending that it was unable to extract the decree in good time due to circumstances beyond its control. Section 21 (1) of the statute provides as follows:
“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.”
10. My attention is also drawn to section 9 of the Law Reform Act which provides as follows:
(1) Any power to make rules of court to provide for any matters relating to the procedure of civil courts shall include power to make rules of court—
(a)prescribing the procedure and the fees payable on documents filed or issued in cases where an order of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari is sought;
(b)requiring, except in such cases as may be specified in the rules, that leave shall be obtained before an application is made for any such order;
(c)requiring that, where leave is obtained, no relief shall be granted and no ground relied upon, except with the leave of the court, other than the relief and grounds specified when the application for leave was made.
(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3), rules made under subsection (1) may prescribe that applications for an order of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari shall, in specified proceedings, be made within six months, or such shorter period as may be prescribed, after the act or omission to which the application for leave relates.
(3) In the case of an application for an order of certiorari to remove any judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceedings for the purpose of its being quashed, leave shall not be granted unless the application for leave is made not later than six months after the date of that judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceeding or such shorter period as may be prescribed under any written law; and where that judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceeding is subject to appeal, and a time is limited by law for the bringing of the appeal, the court or judge may adjourn the application for leave until the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired.
11. Similarly, order 53, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides:
“Leave shall not be granted to apply for an order of certiorari to remove any judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceeding for the purpose of its being quashed, unless the application for leave is made not later than six months after the date of the proceeding or such shorter period as may be prescribed by any Act; and where the proceeding is subject to appeal and a time is limited by law for the bringing of the appeal, the judge may adjourn the application for leave until the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired.”
12. Finally, section 4 (4) of the Limitation Act, the same provides as follows:
“An action may not be brought upon a judgment after the end of twelve years from the date on which the judgment was delivered, or (where the judgment or a subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods) the date of the default in making the payment or delivery in question, and no arrears of interest in respect of a judgment debt may be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due.”
13. Upon examining the provisions of the Law Reform Act, I find that they contemplate situations where certain specified proceedings must be filed within six months, or within an extended period of another six months. It is, however, unclear what constitutes such “specified proceedings.” What is evident is that an application for mandamus seeking enforcement of a decree is not subject to strict timelines under section 9(2) of the Act. Consequently, latitude is afforded to a party provided sufficient reasons are demonstrated for not filing within six months as contemplated under Order 53, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
14. In the present matter, the application arises from execution proceedings following a decree issued on 25th March 2025 and a certificate of order for costs against the government issued on 30th April 2025. In my view, time began to run from 30th April 2025, when the certificate of order for costs was issued, in line with section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act. The applicant was therefore within time to file the present application. As the Court of Appeal observed in Lucy Mirigo & 550 Others v. Minister for Lands & 4 Others [2014] eKLR:
“On our part, we have examined the provisions of Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Act which is the juridical basis for an application for mandamus. Rule 2 of Order 53 provides a six-month limitation period for an order of Certiorari. There is no limitation period to institute an action for mandamus. Limitation for purposes of mandamus is to be determined by the reasonableness and length of time between the cause of action and time of filing suit."
15. Similar findings were made in in Faram East Africa Limited vs. County Secretary, Government of Nairobi County & 5 others [2025] KEHC 6351 (KLR) when the court pronounced as follows:
“44.In my humble view, the Limitation of Actions Act's twelve-year limitation period applies to all actions on a judgment, including those seeking mandamus to compel settlement. This means that even if a mandamus is sought, it cannot be brought more than twelve years after the judgment is delivered or the default date is reached.
45.I further hold the view that while the Law Reform Act provides the basis for judicial review, including mandamus, generally, it does not prescribe a specific time limit for mandamus applications to enforce decrees. The Limitation of Actions Act, specifically section 4(4), prescribes those actions on judgments, including those seeking mandamus, are subject to a twelve-year limitation period.”
16. It follows, therefore, that the order sought in prayer (1) of the Chamber Summons was unnecessary. The applicant was still within the prescribed period to file judicial proceedings.
17. The applicant now seeks leave to institute judicial review proceedings against the respondent to satisfy the decretal sum. The guiding framework is found in section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, which governs execution against the government. Jurisprudence in our courts has consistently affirmed that execution against the government can only be achieved through an application for an order of mandamus.
18. This position was articulated by Odunga, J. (as he then was) in Republic v. Attorney General & Another ex parte James Alfred Koroso [2013] eKLR, and later endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Five Star Agencies Ltd & Another v. National Land Commission & 2 Others [2024] KECA 439 (KLR), where the it stated:
“In the present case the ex parte applicant has no other option of realising the fruits of his 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 our current Constitutional dispensation in light of the provisions of Article 48 of the 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 judgements have been decreed by courts of competent jurisdiction cannot enjoy the fruits of their judgement due to roadblocks placed on their paths by actions or inactions of public officers…”
19. In this this present case, the applicant was issued with a decree on 25th March 2025, which was served upon the respondent on 23rd April 2025. A certificate of order for costs against the government was subsequently issued on 30th April 2025. This was served upon the respondent on 25th August 2025.
20. The applicant has sufficiently explained the circumstances leading to the filing of this application. Accordingly, I find no reason to deny the relief sought the applicant’s Chamber Summon is allowed in terms of prayer 2. Applicant granted 21 days to file and serve the substantive motion.
It is so ordered.
Delivered, Dated and Signed this 18th day of December 2025
1) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to extend time for filing these judicial review proceedings for an order of mandamus beyond the statutory time of six months;
2) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave to the ex parte applicant to apply for judicial review for an order of mandamus to issue to compel the County Secretary in the County Government of Machakos to pay the ex parte applicant decretal sum of Kshs. 595,474.82 being the judgment sum, interest and costs awarded in Mavoko MCCC No. 847 of 2020 – Multi Supplier Limited vs. County Government of Machakos;
3) THAT the costs of this application be in favor of the applicant.
2. The application is brought under order 53, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is supported by the grounds set out in the body of the Summons, together with the supporting affidavit of Charles Chege, the applicant’s director, sworn on 25th August 2025. A statutory statement of the same date is also annexed. To contextualize the application, an brief background of the facts as set out in the application in necessary.
3. The applicant, avers that it instituted proceedings against the respondent in Mavoko MCCC No. 847 of 2020 – Multi Supplier Limited vs. County Government of Machakos. On 24th May 2021, judgment was entered in favor of the applicant against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 595,474.82. Subsequently, on 5th July 2021, the applicant wrote to the court registry requesting the issuance of the decree in order to commence execution. On 27th July 2021, the applicant served the respondent with a notice of entry of judgment dated 14th July 2021.
4. After numerous follow ups with the court registry, the applicant contends that it only managed to access the court file on 10th February 2025. Thereafter, the applicant lodged a Notice of Motion dated 4th February 2025 seeking issuance of a certificate of order and a certificate of order for costs against the government. This application was allowed by the trial court on 19th March 2025.
5. The applicant was issued with a decree on 25th March 2025 which was served upon the respondent on 23rd April 2025. Seven days later, the applicant was issued with a certificate of order for costs against the government which was served upon the respondent on 25th August 2025.
6. For those reasons, the applicant urged this court to grant the reliefs sought, submitting that the delay had been sufficiently explained. It further contends that it is in the interest of justice that the orders sought are granted.
7. This is an ex parte application. Consequently, the respondent did not file any response. Although the applicant had been directed to file written submissions, by the time I retired to write this ruling, none had been received. Nonetheless, I have considered the applicant and the documents in support and analyzed the law.
8. The applicant firstly seeks leave to commence judicial proceedings out of time for purposes of enforcing the decree arising from Mavoko MCCC No. 847 of 2020 – Multi Supplier Limited vs. County Government of Machakos. In that matter, judgment was entered in favor of the applicant on 24th May 2021 for the sum of Kshs. 595,474.82.
9. The procedure for execution of decrees against the Government is set out under section 21 of Government Proceedings Act, which also applies to County Government pursuant to section 21 (5) of the Act. The applicant seeks leave to file these proceedings out of time, contending that it was unable to extract the decree in good time due to circumstances beyond its control. Section 21 (1) of the statute provides as follows:
“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.”
10. My attention is also drawn to section 9 of the Law Reform Act which provides as follows:
(1) Any power to make rules of court to provide for any matters relating to the procedure of civil courts shall include power to make rules of court—
(a)prescribing the procedure and the fees payable on documents filed or issued in cases where an order of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari is sought;
(b)requiring, except in such cases as may be specified in the rules, that leave shall be obtained before an application is made for any such order;
(c)requiring that, where leave is obtained, no relief shall be granted and no ground relied upon, except with the leave of the court, other than the relief and grounds specified when the application for leave was made.
(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3), rules made under subsection (1) may prescribe that applications for an order of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari shall, in specified proceedings, be made within six months, or such shorter period as may be prescribed, after the act or omission to which the application for leave relates.
(3) In the case of an application for an order of certiorari to remove any judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceedings for the purpose of its being quashed, leave shall not be granted unless the application for leave is made not later than six months after the date of that judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceeding or such shorter period as may be prescribed under any written law; and where that judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceeding is subject to appeal, and a time is limited by law for the bringing of the appeal, the court or judge may adjourn the application for leave until the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired.
11. Similarly, order 53, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides:
“Leave shall not be granted to apply for an order of certiorari to remove any judgment, order, decree, conviction or other proceeding for the purpose of its being quashed, unless the application for leave is made not later than six months after the date of the proceeding or such shorter period as may be prescribed by any Act; and where the proceeding is subject to appeal and a time is limited by law for the bringing of the appeal, the judge may adjourn the application for leave until the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired.”
12. Finally, section 4 (4) of the Limitation Act, the same provides as follows:
“An action may not be brought upon a judgment after the end of twelve years from the date on which the judgment was delivered, or (where the judgment or a subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods) the date of the default in making the payment or delivery in question, and no arrears of interest in respect of a judgment debt may be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due.”
13. Upon examining the provisions of the Law Reform Act, I find that they contemplate situations where certain specified proceedings must be filed within six months, or within an extended period of another six months. It is, however, unclear what constitutes such “specified proceedings.” What is evident is that an application for mandamus seeking enforcement of a decree is not subject to strict timelines under section 9(2) of the Act. Consequently, latitude is afforded to a party provided sufficient reasons are demonstrated for not filing within six months as contemplated under Order 53, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
14. In the present matter, the application arises from execution proceedings following a decree issued on 25th March 2025 and a certificate of order for costs against the government issued on 30th April 2025. In my view, time began to run from 30th April 2025, when the certificate of order for costs was issued, in line with section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act. The applicant was therefore within time to file the present application. As the Court of Appeal observed in Lucy Mirigo & 550 Others v. Minister for Lands & 4 Others [2014] eKLR:
“On our part, we have examined the provisions of Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Act which is the juridical basis for an application for mandamus. Rule 2 of Order 53 provides a six-month limitation period for an order of Certiorari. There is no limitation period to institute an action for mandamus. Limitation for purposes of mandamus is to be determined by the reasonableness and length of time between the cause of action and time of filing suit."
15. Similar findings were made in in Faram East Africa Limited vs. County Secretary, Government of Nairobi County & 5 others [2025] KEHC 6351 (KLR) when the court pronounced as follows:
“44.In my humble view, the Limitation of Actions Act's twelve-year limitation period applies to all actions on a judgment, including those seeking mandamus to compel settlement. This means that even if a mandamus is sought, it cannot be brought more than twelve years after the judgment is delivered or the default date is reached.
45.I further hold the view that while the Law Reform Act provides the basis for judicial review, including mandamus, generally, it does not prescribe a specific time limit for mandamus applications to enforce decrees. The Limitation of Actions Act, specifically section 4(4), prescribes those actions on judgments, including those seeking mandamus, are subject to a twelve-year limitation period.”
16. It follows, therefore, that the order sought in prayer (1) of the Chamber Summons was unnecessary. The applicant was still within the prescribed period to file judicial proceedings.
17. The applicant now seeks leave to institute judicial review proceedings against the respondent to satisfy the decretal sum. The guiding framework is found in section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, which governs execution against the government. Jurisprudence in our courts has consistently affirmed that execution against the government can only be achieved through an application for an order of mandamus.
18. This position was articulated by Odunga, J. (as he then was) in Republic v. Attorney General & Another ex parte James Alfred Koroso [2013] eKLR, and later endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Five Star Agencies Ltd & Another v. National Land Commission & 2 Others [2024] KECA 439 (KLR), where the it stated:
“In the present case the ex parte applicant has no other option of realising the fruits of his 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 our current Constitutional dispensation in light of the provisions of Article 48 of the 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 judgements have been decreed by courts of competent jurisdiction cannot enjoy the fruits of their judgement due to roadblocks placed on their paths by actions or inactions of public officers…”
19. In this this present case, the applicant was issued with a decree on 25th March 2025, which was served upon the respondent on 23rd April 2025. A certificate of order for costs against the government was subsequently issued on 30th April 2025. This was served upon the respondent on 25th August 2025.
20. The applicant has sufficiently explained the circumstances leading to the filing of this application. Accordingly, I find no reason to deny the relief sought the applicant’s Chamber Summon is allowed in terms of prayer 2. Applicant granted 21 days to file and serve the substantive motion.
It is so ordered.
Delivered, Dated and Signed this 18th day of December 2025