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. 58,598,871.97 plus interest until payment in full, 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 18th January 2023 against the National Land Commission. The Bill was duly taxed, and a ruling was delivered on 19th January 2024, culminating in the issuance of a Certificate of Taxation on 2nd February 2024 for the sum of Kshs. 46,392,044.66 together with interest at 14% per annum until payment in full. Subsequently, judgment on the Certificate of Costs was entered on 18th November 2024, followed by the issuance of a decree on 5th December 2024 and the extraction of a Certificate of Order on 6th December 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, thereby necessitating the present application. I note with concern that although the application was duly served and the Respondents were afforded sufficient opportunities to respond, no reply was filed. Nevertheless, it remains incumbent upon this Court to scrutinize the veracity and legitimacy of the claim before it.
Analysis and Determination
4. Having considered the application, response as well as the written submissions of both parties, the following issues arise for determination.
5. With respect to compliance with Section 21 of the GPA, the record filed in Court shows that upon taxation of the Bill of Costs, a ruling was delivered, a Certificate of Taxation was issued, followed by the entry of judgment and issuance of a decree. Subsequently, a Certificate of Order against the Government, together with Costs, was extracted. The demand letters from the applicant as well as proof of service have equally been presented before the Court all in satisfaction of the requirements under Section 21(1) and (2) GPA.
6. 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.
7. I further concur with the decision in Republic v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration & Internal Security ex parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza [supra] that:
“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. This provision does not condition payment to budgetary allocation and parliamentary approval of Government expenditure in the financial year subsequent to which Government liability accrues”.
8. Section 21(4) of the GPA expressly prohibits execution against government property. Consequently, the sole remedy available to a successful litigant is the writ of mandamus. 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. Likewise, in Republic v Permanent Secretary Ministry of State For Provincial Administration and Internal Security & another Ex-parte Richard Mbugua Kahama [2013] KEHC 84 (KLR), the Court underscored that litigants should not be left with no option of ensuring that the judgments they have been awarded against the government are realised otherwise they would end up babysitting barren decrees.
9. 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
10. 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. 58,598,871.97 plus interest until payment in full.
ii. 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.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI
THIS 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026.
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
Delivered in the presence of:
Ms Msando holding brief for SC Prof. Ojienda for the applicant
Lilian: Court Assistant
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. 58,598,871.97 plus interest until payment in full, 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 18th January 2023 against the National Land Commission. The Bill was duly taxed, and a ruling was delivered on 19th January 2024, culminating in the issuance of a Certificate of Taxation on 2nd February 2024 for the sum of Kshs. 46,392,044.66 together with interest at 14% per annum until payment in full. Subsequently, judgment on the Certificate of Costs was entered on 18th November 2024, followed by the issuance of a decree on 5th December 2024 and the extraction of a Certificate of Order on 6th December 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, thereby necessitating the present application. I note with concern that although the application was duly served and the Respondents were afforded sufficient opportunities to respond, no reply was filed. Nevertheless, it remains incumbent upon this Court to scrutinize the veracity and legitimacy of the claim before it.
Analysis and Determination
4. Having considered the application, response as well as the written submissions of both parties, the following issues arise for determination.
5. With respect to compliance with Section 21 of the GPA, the record filed in Court shows that upon taxation of the Bill of Costs, a ruling was delivered, a Certificate of Taxation was issued, followed by the entry of judgment and issuance of a decree. Subsequently, a Certificate of Order against the Government, together with Costs, was extracted. The demand letters from the applicant as well as proof of service have equally been presented before the Court all in satisfaction of the requirements under Section 21(1) and (2) GPA.
6. 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.
7. I further concur with the decision in Republic v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration & Internal Security ex parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza [supra] that:
“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. This provision does not condition payment to budgetary allocation and parliamentary approval of Government expenditure in the financial year subsequent to which Government liability accrues”.
8. Section 21(4) of the GPA expressly prohibits execution against government property. Consequently, the sole remedy available to a successful litigant is the writ of mandamus. 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. Likewise, in Republic v Permanent Secretary Ministry of State For Provincial Administration and Internal Security & another Ex-parte Richard Mbugua Kahama [2013] KEHC 84 (KLR), the Court underscored that litigants should not be left with no option of ensuring that the judgments they have been awarded against the government are realised otherwise they would end up babysitting barren decrees.
9. 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
10. 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. 58,598,871.97 plus interest until payment in full.
ii. 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.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI
THIS 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026.
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
Delivered in the presence of:
Ms Msando holding brief for SC Prof. Ojienda for the applicant
Lilian: Court Assistant