Background and Introduction
1. This Court is called upon to determine whether an order of Mandamus should issue compelling the Respondents to pay the decretal sum of Kshs. 212,664.67 plus interest, arising from an Advocate–Client Bill of Costs taxed and subsequently reduced into a decree of this Court.
2. The Applicant contends that they filed a Bill of Costs dated 29th March 2023 against Nairobi City County. The Bill was duly taxed, and a Ruling was delivered on 1st December 2023, culminating in the issuance of a Certificate of Taxation on 31st January 2024 for the sum of Kshs. 190,000/= together with interest at 14% per annum until payment in full. Subsequently, judgment on the Certificate of Costs was entered on 11th July 2024, followed by the issuance of a decree on 24th July 2024 and the extraction of a Certificate of Order on 29th July 2024.
3. It is further contended that despite service of the Certificate of Order against Government and repeated demands, the Respondents have failed to settle the decretal sum, necessitating this application.
4. The Respondents, through the affidavit of Asha Abdi, Chief Officer-Finance Nairobi County, oppose the application, arguing that they are a public institution governed by the provisions of the Public Finance Management Act, 2012 (PFMA), which regulates all matters concerning the management of public finances and expenditure. They contend that, under Part IV of the PFMA, any financial commitments or payments including the settlement of court decrees must be subjected to the elaborate budgetary process established by law.
5. The Respondents assert that the non-payment of the decretal sum does not stem from willful refusal or neglect but is instead occasioned by the complexities and procedural requirements inherent in the statutory financial management system. They emphasize that, despite their genuine intention to satisfy the debt, delays have arisen due to the multiplicity of stakeholders, government departments, and statutory requirements that must be observed before public funds can be lawfully expended.
Analysis and Determination
6. I have considered the application, response as well as the written submissions of both parties.
7. It is not in doubt that the starting point in these proceedings is compliance with the provisions of the Government Proceedings Act (GPA). From a perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the ex parte Applicant has complied with the requirements under Section 21 of the GPA, culminating in the issuance of a Certificate of Order against the Government. No evidence has been tendered to show that the Certificate has been settled
8. Section 21(3) of the GPA places a statutory obligation on the accounting officer to settle the amounts stated in the Certificate of Order, inclusive of any accrued interest. In Republic v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration & Internal Security ex parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza [2012] eKLR, the Court affirmed that upon service of the certificate, the accounting officer is bound to make payment. This obligation is absolute and does not depend on the availability of budgetary allocation or the approval of Parliament.
9. The Court stated 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”.
10. The arguments advanced by the Respondents amount to an acknowledgment that the decretal sum is indeed owed and that certain internal arrangements have been contemplated towards settlement of the decree. However, this Court must emphasize that fiscal planning or budgetary constraints cannot be invoked as a shield against compliance with a clear statutory obligation. To permit such a defence would be to elevate administrative convenience above the rule of law.
11. Judicial pronouncements confirm that Government liability crystallizes upon the entry of judgment and the issuance of a Certificate of Order, and the duty to satisfy that liability is immediate and unqualified. Any contrary position would render decrees against the State illusory, thereby undermining the constitutional guarantee of access to justice under Article 48. The Constitution does not envisage a situation where successful litigants are left holding barren decrees, dependent upon the vagaries of fiscal cycles or bureaucratic processes.
12. In this respect, I am fully in agreement with the decision in Republic v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration & Internal Security ex parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza [supra] where the above sentiments were emphasized.
13. This principle assumes heightened importance when considered alongside Section 21(4) of the GPA, which expressly prohibits execution against government property. The legislature, in shielding government assets from attachment, simultaneously imposed upon accounting officers the correlative duty to satisfy decrees through compliance with orders of mandamus. Consequently, the writ of mandamus emerges as the sole and indispensable remedy available to a successful litigant. In Shah v Attorney General (No. 3) [1970] EA 543, the Court held that where no other remedy exists, mandamus must issue to secure justice.
14. It therefore follows that upon obtaining a decree against the Government and serving the Nairobi County Government with the Certificate of Order, the Applicant acquired a vested legal right which, in turn, imposed a statutory obligation on the County’s accounting officer to satisfy the decretal sum specified therein. The Respondent is unequivocally bound, both by statute and by public duty, to comply with the decree issued by a competent court in favor of the Applicant.
15. It is further uncontested that no appeal has been lodged against the judgment of this Court. In these circumstances, the balance of convenience, coupled with the imperatives of justice, decisively warrant the issuance of an order of mandamus..
Disposition
16. The application dated 23rd June 2025 is therefore allowed with the result that
i. An order of mandamus is hereby issued compelling the Respondents to pay to the Applicant forthwith and without delay, the decretal decretal sum of Kshs.212,664.67 together with accrued interetes until payment in full
ii. That in default of payment under prayer 1 the applicant be at liberty to take out a Notice to Show Cause why the Respondents should not be committed to civil jail for contempt of Court Orders.
iii. Each party shall bear their costs of the application.
1. This Court is called upon to determine whether an order of Mandamus should issue compelling the Respondents to pay the decretal sum of Kshs. 212,664.67 plus interest, arising from an Advocate–Client Bill of Costs taxed and subsequently reduced into a decree of this Court.
2. The Applicant contends that they filed a Bill of Costs dated 29th March 2023 against Nairobi City County. The Bill was duly taxed, and a Ruling was delivered on 1st December 2023, culminating in the issuance of a Certificate of Taxation on 31st January 2024 for the sum of Kshs. 190,000/= together with interest at 14% per annum until payment in full. Subsequently, judgment on the Certificate of Costs was entered on 11th July 2024, followed by the issuance of a decree on 24th July 2024 and the extraction of a Certificate of Order on 29th July 2024.
3. It is further contended that despite service of the Certificate of Order against Government and repeated demands, the Respondents have failed to settle the decretal sum, necessitating this application.
4. The Respondents, through the affidavit of Asha Abdi, Chief Officer-Finance Nairobi County, oppose the application, arguing that they are a public institution governed by the provisions of the Public Finance Management Act, 2012 (PFMA), which regulates all matters concerning the management of public finances and expenditure. They contend that, under Part IV of the PFMA, any financial commitments or payments including the settlement of court decrees must be subjected to the elaborate budgetary process established by law.
5. The Respondents assert that the non-payment of the decretal sum does not stem from willful refusal or neglect but is instead occasioned by the complexities and procedural requirements inherent in the statutory financial management system. They emphasize that, despite their genuine intention to satisfy the debt, delays have arisen due to the multiplicity of stakeholders, government departments, and statutory requirements that must be observed before public funds can be lawfully expended.
Analysis and Determination
6. I have considered the application, response as well as the written submissions of both parties.
7. It is not in doubt that the starting point in these proceedings is compliance with the provisions of the Government Proceedings Act (GPA). From a perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the ex parte Applicant has complied with the requirements under Section 21 of the GPA, culminating in the issuance of a Certificate of Order against the Government. No evidence has been tendered to show that the Certificate has been settled
8. Section 21(3) of the GPA places a statutory obligation on the accounting officer to settle the amounts stated in the Certificate of Order, inclusive of any accrued interest. In Republic v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration & Internal Security ex parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza [2012] eKLR, the Court affirmed that upon service of the certificate, the accounting officer is bound to make payment. This obligation is absolute and does not depend on the availability of budgetary allocation or the approval of Parliament.
9. The Court stated 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”.
10. The arguments advanced by the Respondents amount to an acknowledgment that the decretal sum is indeed owed and that certain internal arrangements have been contemplated towards settlement of the decree. However, this Court must emphasize that fiscal planning or budgetary constraints cannot be invoked as a shield against compliance with a clear statutory obligation. To permit such a defence would be to elevate administrative convenience above the rule of law.
11. Judicial pronouncements confirm that Government liability crystallizes upon the entry of judgment and the issuance of a Certificate of Order, and the duty to satisfy that liability is immediate and unqualified. Any contrary position would render decrees against the State illusory, thereby undermining the constitutional guarantee of access to justice under Article 48. The Constitution does not envisage a situation where successful litigants are left holding barren decrees, dependent upon the vagaries of fiscal cycles or bureaucratic processes.
12. In this respect, I am fully in agreement with the decision in Republic v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration & Internal Security ex parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza [supra] where the above sentiments were emphasized.
13. This principle assumes heightened importance when considered alongside Section 21(4) of the GPA, which expressly prohibits execution against government property. The legislature, in shielding government assets from attachment, simultaneously imposed upon accounting officers the correlative duty to satisfy decrees through compliance with orders of mandamus. Consequently, the writ of mandamus emerges as the sole and indispensable remedy available to a successful litigant. In Shah v Attorney General (No. 3) [1970] EA 543, the Court held that where no other remedy exists, mandamus must issue to secure justice.
14. It therefore follows that upon obtaining a decree against the Government and serving the Nairobi County Government with the Certificate of Order, the Applicant acquired a vested legal right which, in turn, imposed a statutory obligation on the County’s accounting officer to satisfy the decretal sum specified therein. The Respondent is unequivocally bound, both by statute and by public duty, to comply with the decree issued by a competent court in favor of the Applicant.
15. It is further uncontested that no appeal has been lodged against the judgment of this Court. In these circumstances, the balance of convenience, coupled with the imperatives of justice, decisively warrant the issuance of an order of mandamus..
Disposition
16. The application dated 23rd June 2025 is therefore allowed with the result that
i. An order of mandamus is hereby issued compelling the Respondents to pay to the Applicant forthwith and without delay, the decretal decretal sum of Kshs.212,664.67 together with accrued interetes until payment in full
ii. That in default of payment under prayer 1 the applicant be at liberty to take out a Notice to Show Cause why the Respondents should not be committed to civil jail for contempt of Court Orders.
iii. Each party shall bear their costs of the application.