A. THE NOTICE OF MOTION DATED 1TH FEBRUARY, 2026.
1. The ex parte Applicant’s notice of motion dated 13th February, 2026 is expressed to be brought pursuant to the leave granted on 2nd February, 2026, and seeks the following orders:
a. [Spent].
b. THAT the court be pleased to grant an order of mandamus compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to comply with the judgement of Justice Joe M. Omido in Kisumu High Court Miscellenous Application No. 289 of 2015 James Aggrey Mwamu T/A Mwamu & Company v County Government of Siaya requiring them to pay Ksh.428,353.20/- together with interest from 9th August, 2016 till payment in full.
c. Costs of and incidental to this application be assessed at a modest sum of Ksh.100,000/-.
2. The application is premised on the grounds that the Respondents failed to appreciate and comply with the constitutional and statutory provisions governing the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing and the consequences arising therefrom under Article 47 of the Constitution.
3. It is further contended that the Applicant’s costs were taxed on 6th October, 2023 in the sum of Ksh.428,353.20/-.
4. The Applicant asserts that despite the judgement and decree of the Court, the Respondent has failed and neglected to satisfy the decretal amount, and that such failure and refusal to pay is deliberate and persistent.
5. The Applicant maintains that the Respondent’s failure to comply with the decree has occasioned, and continues to occasion, injustice and prejudice to the Decree Holder.
B. THE SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT.
6. The application is supported by the affidavit of James Aggrey Mwamu sworn on 13th February, 2026 in which he deposes that he is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya practising in the firm of Mwamu and Company Advocates, which has conduct of the matter, and is therefore competent to swear the affidavit.
7. The deponent deposes that on or about 6th October, 2016, the Deputy Registrar taxed the Applicant’s costs at Ksh.428,353.20/-, as evidenced by the certificate of costs annexed and marked JAM-1.
8. He further deposes that on or about 26th January, 2024, the Applicant filed an application for entry of judgement, a copy of which is annexed and marked JAM-2. He states that on or about 3rd April, 2025, judgement was entered in favour of the Applicant by the Court, a copy of the order being annexed and marked JAM-3. He adds that the said judgement has neither been reviewed nor set aside, and has annexed a copy of the decree marked JAM-4.
9. Counsel further deposes that on 14th November, 2025, the Applicant served the County Government of Siaya with the certificate of costs, a copy of which is annexed and marked JAM-5. He further states that the Applicant extracted a certificate of order against the Government, which was duly served upon the Respondents, and has annexed the said certificate as JAM-6.
10. He contends that notwithstanding service of the certificate of order, the County Government of Siaya has not made any payment towards satisfaction of the decree. He has annexed the return of service evidencing service of the certificate of order, marked JAM-7.
11. The deponent further deposes that before commencing the instant judicial review proceedings, the Applicant filed a chamber summons seeking leave to apply for an order of mandamus, a copy of which application is annexed and marked JAM-8. He states that on 2nd February, 2026, the Court granted the Applicant leave to apply for an order of mandamus, and has annexed a copy of the order granting leave marked JAM-9.
C. FAILURE BY THE RESPONDENTS TO FILE RESPONSES.
12. The Respondents were duly served with the notice of motion, to the satisfaction of the Court, but neither filed any response thereto nor otherwise participated in the proceedings.
13. They were similarly served with the hearing notice for 16th September, 2026, when the application was scheduled for hearing. Notwithstanding such service, the Respondents neither appeared before the Court nor offered any explanation for their absence.
14. The application therefore proceeded in their absence, whereby the Applicant entirely relied on the contents of the supporting affidavit.
D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION.
15. Having considered the application, the affidavit in support and the record in its entirety, the issues that avail for determination are as follows:
i. Whether the ex parte Applicant has established the legal and factual basis for the grant of an order of mandamus compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to satisfy the judgement and decree in Kisumu High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 289 of 2015, James Aggrey Mwamu T/A Mwamu & Company Advocates v County Government of Siaya.
ii. Whether the ex parte Applicant is entitled to the sum of Ksh.428,353.20/- together with interest from 9th August, 2016 until payment in full, as sought in the notice of motion.
iii. Who should bear the costs of the application and, if so, in what sum.
E. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS.
16. The starting point is that an order of mandamus is a public law remedy whose purpose is to compel the performance of a public duty imposed upon a public body or officer by law. It does not ordinarily determine the existence of a private right. Rather, it compels the performance of a duty which the law requires to be performed. In the present case, the duty sought to be enforced arises from an existing judgement and decree of this Court.
17. The evidence before the Court establishes that the ex parte Applicant’s costs were taxed at Ksh.428,353.20/-, as evidenced by the certificate of costs marked JAM-1. The Applicant thereafter moved the Court for entry of judgement, and judgement was subsequently entered on 3rd April, 2025, as evidenced by the order marked JAM-3. A decree was thereafter issued and is annexed as JAM-4.
18. Of significance is the Applicant’s deposition that the judgement and decree have neither been reviewed nor set aside. The Respondents, despite being duly served with the notice of motion and the hearing notice, neither filed a response nor appeared before the Court to challenge that assertion or the validity of the decree. The evidential position placed before the Court therefore remains uncontroverted.
19. The Applicant has further demonstrated that the certificate of costs was served upon the County Government of Siaya on 14th November, 2025, and that a certificate of order against the Government was subsequently extracted and served upon the Respondents. The certificate of order is annexed as JAM-6, while the return of service evidencing service is annexed as JAM-7.
20. Notwithstanding such service, the decretal sum remains unpaid.
21. The obligation to satisfy a lawful judgement against a county government is not extinguished merely because the judgement is against a public entity. Once a valid judgement has been entered and the prescribed process for enforcement against the Government has been undertaken, the relevant public officers cannot simply disregard the decree. Their statutory duty is to facilitate satisfaction of the judgement in accordance with the law.
22. In the circumstances of this case, the ex parte Applicant has demonstrated the existence of a clear and subsisting judgement and decree; the amount due thereunder; service of the relevant documents upon the Respondents; and the failure by the Respondents to satisfy the decree.
23. No evidence has been placed before the Court suggesting that the decree has been satisfied, stayed, reviewed or set aside.
24. The Court is therefore satisfied that the ex parte Applicant has established a proper basis for the issuance of an order of mandamus. The order will not amount to the Court issuing a fresh judgement against the Respondents. Rather, it will compel the performance of an existing legal obligation arising from a judgement and decree of a competent court.
25. As regards the sum claimed, the certificate of costs and the subsequent judgement and decree establish the principal amount of Ksh.428,353.20/-. The Applicant has also sought interest thereon from 9th August, 2016, being the date of issuance of the certificate of costs, until payment in full.
26. In the absence of any response or evidence challenging the claim, and subject to the terms of the judgement and decree, the Court finds that the decretal sum and the interest properly payable thereon ought to be satisfied.
27. I accordingly find that the ex parte Applicant has made out a case for the grant of an order of mandamus compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to comply with the judgement and decree in Kisumu High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 289 of 2015, James Aggrey Mwamu T/A Mwamu & Company Advocates v County Government of Siaya.
28. On costs, the general principle is that costs follow the event, subject to the discretion of the Court. The Applicant has been compelled to institute the present proceedings to secure compliance with a judgement which remains unsatisfied.
29. In the circumstances, I consider it just that the costs of the application should be borne by the Respondents. I would, however, assess costs in the sum of Ksh.15,000/-, rather than the Ksh.100,000/- sought, considering that the application was not contested.
F. DISPOSITION AND ORDERS.
30. In the result, the notice of motion dated 13th February, 2026 is hereby allowed on the following terms:
a. An order of mandamus is hereby issued compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to comply with the judgement and decree in Kisumu High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 289 of 2015, James Aggrey Mwamu T/A Mwamu & Company Advocates v County Government of Siaya, by paying to the ex parte Applicant the decretal sum of Ksh.428,353.20/- together with interest thereon at court rates from 9th August, 2016 until payment in full, and costs of Ksh.15,000/-.
b. The 1st and 2nd Respondents shall comply with the order of mandamus within fourteen (14) days from the date of service upon them of the order of this Court.
c. For avoidance of doubt, the order of mandamus herein is directed at the performance of the existing judgement and decree of the Court and does not vary, review or otherwise alter the terms thereof.
31. This file is hereby closed.
32. Orders accordingly.
Delivered, Dated & Signed this 17th day of September, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE
FOR THE EX PARTE APPLICANT: Mr. Mwamu, SC.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS: No appearance.
COURT ASSISTANTS: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.
1. The ex parte Applicant’s notice of motion dated 13th February, 2026 is expressed to be brought pursuant to the leave granted on 2nd February, 2026, and seeks the following orders:
a. [Spent].
b. THAT the court be pleased to grant an order of mandamus compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to comply with the judgement of Justice Joe M. Omido in Kisumu High Court Miscellenous Application No. 289 of 2015 James Aggrey Mwamu T/A Mwamu & Company v County Government of Siaya requiring them to pay Ksh.428,353.20/- together with interest from 9th August, 2016 till payment in full.
c. Costs of and incidental to this application be assessed at a modest sum of Ksh.100,000/-.
2. The application is premised on the grounds that the Respondents failed to appreciate and comply with the constitutional and statutory provisions governing the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing and the consequences arising therefrom under Article 47 of the Constitution.
3. It is further contended that the Applicant’s costs were taxed on 6th October, 2023 in the sum of Ksh.428,353.20/-.
4. The Applicant asserts that despite the judgement and decree of the Court, the Respondent has failed and neglected to satisfy the decretal amount, and that such failure and refusal to pay is deliberate and persistent.
5. The Applicant maintains that the Respondent’s failure to comply with the decree has occasioned, and continues to occasion, injustice and prejudice to the Decree Holder.
B. THE SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT.
6. The application is supported by the affidavit of James Aggrey Mwamu sworn on 13th February, 2026 in which he deposes that he is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya practising in the firm of Mwamu and Company Advocates, which has conduct of the matter, and is therefore competent to swear the affidavit.
7. The deponent deposes that on or about 6th October, 2016, the Deputy Registrar taxed the Applicant’s costs at Ksh.428,353.20/-, as evidenced by the certificate of costs annexed and marked JAM-1.
8. He further deposes that on or about 26th January, 2024, the Applicant filed an application for entry of judgement, a copy of which is annexed and marked JAM-2. He states that on or about 3rd April, 2025, judgement was entered in favour of the Applicant by the Court, a copy of the order being annexed and marked JAM-3. He adds that the said judgement has neither been reviewed nor set aside, and has annexed a copy of the decree marked JAM-4.
9. Counsel further deposes that on 14th November, 2025, the Applicant served the County Government of Siaya with the certificate of costs, a copy of which is annexed and marked JAM-5. He further states that the Applicant extracted a certificate of order against the Government, which was duly served upon the Respondents, and has annexed the said certificate as JAM-6.
10. He contends that notwithstanding service of the certificate of order, the County Government of Siaya has not made any payment towards satisfaction of the decree. He has annexed the return of service evidencing service of the certificate of order, marked JAM-7.
11. The deponent further deposes that before commencing the instant judicial review proceedings, the Applicant filed a chamber summons seeking leave to apply for an order of mandamus, a copy of which application is annexed and marked JAM-8. He states that on 2nd February, 2026, the Court granted the Applicant leave to apply for an order of mandamus, and has annexed a copy of the order granting leave marked JAM-9.
C. FAILURE BY THE RESPONDENTS TO FILE RESPONSES.
12. The Respondents were duly served with the notice of motion, to the satisfaction of the Court, but neither filed any response thereto nor otherwise participated in the proceedings.
13. They were similarly served with the hearing notice for 16th September, 2026, when the application was scheduled for hearing. Notwithstanding such service, the Respondents neither appeared before the Court nor offered any explanation for their absence.
14. The application therefore proceeded in their absence, whereby the Applicant entirely relied on the contents of the supporting affidavit.
D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION.
15. Having considered the application, the affidavit in support and the record in its entirety, the issues that avail for determination are as follows:
i. Whether the ex parte Applicant has established the legal and factual basis for the grant of an order of mandamus compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to satisfy the judgement and decree in Kisumu High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 289 of 2015, James Aggrey Mwamu T/A Mwamu & Company Advocates v County Government of Siaya.
ii. Whether the ex parte Applicant is entitled to the sum of Ksh.428,353.20/- together with interest from 9th August, 2016 until payment in full, as sought in the notice of motion.
iii. Who should bear the costs of the application and, if so, in what sum.
E. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS.
16. The starting point is that an order of mandamus is a public law remedy whose purpose is to compel the performance of a public duty imposed upon a public body or officer by law. It does not ordinarily determine the existence of a private right. Rather, it compels the performance of a duty which the law requires to be performed. In the present case, the duty sought to be enforced arises from an existing judgement and decree of this Court.
17. The evidence before the Court establishes that the ex parte Applicant’s costs were taxed at Ksh.428,353.20/-, as evidenced by the certificate of costs marked JAM-1. The Applicant thereafter moved the Court for entry of judgement, and judgement was subsequently entered on 3rd April, 2025, as evidenced by the order marked JAM-3. A decree was thereafter issued and is annexed as JAM-4.
18. Of significance is the Applicant’s deposition that the judgement and decree have neither been reviewed nor set aside. The Respondents, despite being duly served with the notice of motion and the hearing notice, neither filed a response nor appeared before the Court to challenge that assertion or the validity of the decree. The evidential position placed before the Court therefore remains uncontroverted.
19. The Applicant has further demonstrated that the certificate of costs was served upon the County Government of Siaya on 14th November, 2025, and that a certificate of order against the Government was subsequently extracted and served upon the Respondents. The certificate of order is annexed as JAM-6, while the return of service evidencing service is annexed as JAM-7.
20. Notwithstanding such service, the decretal sum remains unpaid.
21. The obligation to satisfy a lawful judgement against a county government is not extinguished merely because the judgement is against a public entity. Once a valid judgement has been entered and the prescribed process for enforcement against the Government has been undertaken, the relevant public officers cannot simply disregard the decree. Their statutory duty is to facilitate satisfaction of the judgement in accordance with the law.
22. In the circumstances of this case, the ex parte Applicant has demonstrated the existence of a clear and subsisting judgement and decree; the amount due thereunder; service of the relevant documents upon the Respondents; and the failure by the Respondents to satisfy the decree.
23. No evidence has been placed before the Court suggesting that the decree has been satisfied, stayed, reviewed or set aside.
24. The Court is therefore satisfied that the ex parte Applicant has established a proper basis for the issuance of an order of mandamus. The order will not amount to the Court issuing a fresh judgement against the Respondents. Rather, it will compel the performance of an existing legal obligation arising from a judgement and decree of a competent court.
25. As regards the sum claimed, the certificate of costs and the subsequent judgement and decree establish the principal amount of Ksh.428,353.20/-. The Applicant has also sought interest thereon from 9th August, 2016, being the date of issuance of the certificate of costs, until payment in full.
26. In the absence of any response or evidence challenging the claim, and subject to the terms of the judgement and decree, the Court finds that the decretal sum and the interest properly payable thereon ought to be satisfied.
27. I accordingly find that the ex parte Applicant has made out a case for the grant of an order of mandamus compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to comply with the judgement and decree in Kisumu High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 289 of 2015, James Aggrey Mwamu T/A Mwamu & Company Advocates v County Government of Siaya.
28. On costs, the general principle is that costs follow the event, subject to the discretion of the Court. The Applicant has been compelled to institute the present proceedings to secure compliance with a judgement which remains unsatisfied.
29. In the circumstances, I consider it just that the costs of the application should be borne by the Respondents. I would, however, assess costs in the sum of Ksh.15,000/-, rather than the Ksh.100,000/- sought, considering that the application was not contested.
F. DISPOSITION AND ORDERS.
30. In the result, the notice of motion dated 13th February, 2026 is hereby allowed on the following terms:
a. An order of mandamus is hereby issued compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to comply with the judgement and decree in Kisumu High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 289 of 2015, James Aggrey Mwamu T/A Mwamu & Company Advocates v County Government of Siaya, by paying to the ex parte Applicant the decretal sum of Ksh.428,353.20/- together with interest thereon at court rates from 9th August, 2016 until payment in full, and costs of Ksh.15,000/-.
b. The 1st and 2nd Respondents shall comply with the order of mandamus within fourteen (14) days from the date of service upon them of the order of this Court.
c. For avoidance of doubt, the order of mandamus herein is directed at the performance of the existing judgement and decree of the Court and does not vary, review or otherwise alter the terms thereof.
31. This file is hereby closed.
32. Orders accordingly.
Delivered, Dated & Signed this 17th day of September, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE
FOR THE EX PARTE APPLICANT: Mr. Mwamu, SC.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS: No appearance.
COURT ASSISTANTS: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.