1. Hon. James Wahome Ndegwa, the applicant herein, moved the court through a Notice of Motion dated 14th day of January 2026. It was brought under Order 53, Rules 1, 2, and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules & sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, CAP. 26, Laws of Kenya. He is seeking the following orders:
a) That an order of mandamus do issue to compel the Clerk, Nyandarua County Assembly, to pay the applicant the sum of Kshs. 496,470/= being the decretal amount owed to him in Nakuru Petition No E008 of 2021, together with costs and interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum effective from 17/5/2024, and further costs to be taxed until payment in full.
b) That the Clerk, Nyandarua County Assembly, shall comply by satisfying the decree costs and interest in Nakuru Petition No E008 of 2021 and further costs to be taxed within 21 days from the date of service of the order.
c) That in default, a notice to show cause be issued against the Clerk, Nyandarua County Assembly, to show cause why he/she should not or be cited for contempt of court.
d) That the cost of this application be provided for.
2. The application was premised on the following grounds:
a) That by a consent order recorded by the parties at Nakuru Petition No. E008 of 2021, the petition was allowed on the agreement that the County Assembly of Nyandarua would pay costs to the Applicant, and the same would be assessed by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court of Nakuru.
b) That consequently, the petitioner filed his bill of costs on 6/12/2022 and subsequently, by an order of the Deputy Registrar made on 28/4/2025, the petitioner's Bill of Costs aforesaid was assessed at Kshs.496,470/=.
c) Further, the Deputy Registrar issued a certificate of orders against the Government on said 28/4/2022 certifying the amount payable to the petitioner at Kshs 497,470/= with interest payable from 17/5/2024 until payment is made in full.
d) The respondent has refused to liquidate the same despite several demands to do so without any justification whatsoever.
e) That is now necessary to have the aforesaid proceedings and consent order at Nakuru Petition No. E008 of 2021 moved to this honourable court for the purposes of having the respondent compelled to perform his statutory duties.
f) That if such orders sought are not granted, then the regular consent order and certificate of costs aforesaid will be rendered in vain to great suffering and detriment on the part of the applicant.
3. The respondent opposed the application on the following grounds:
a) The application is frivolous, mischievous, lacking in merit, incompetent and is based on falsehoods, and the same has been brought in bad faith and ought to be dismissed.
b) It is not disputed that the Deputy Registrar, Nakuru High Court, taxed the applicant's bill of costs dated 6th December 2022 at Kshs. 496,470/=.
c) The certificate of costs was made on 17th May 2024 and issued on 24th February 2025, and the certificate of orders against the Government was issued on 28th April 2025.
d) The Applicant never served the said certificate of costs or certificate of orders against the Government upon, or the respondent, and therefore the respondent had no knowledge and/or notice that the said certificate of costs had been obtained.
e) the respondent cannot be held to be in contempt of an order that they were not aware of.
f) That it is clear beyond peradventure that there is no sufficient reason to warrant the court to issue a notice to show cause against the respondent in this matter.
g) It is a trite law that when a party elects to seek judicial review remedies under the Law Reform Act, he must strictly initiate the proceedings within the period prescribed by the Act because there is no jurisdiction to enlarge the limitation period prescribed by the Act.
h) That therefore this instant application was filed outside the 6 months limitation period for filing an application for judicial review orders as provided under section 9(2) of the Law Reform Act, the Act under which this instant application has been brought.
i) This honourable court has no jurisdiction to enlarge the limitation period prescribed under Sections 9(2) and 9(3) of the Law Reform Act.
j) The applicant's application must be dismissed in its entirety on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to enlarge the limitation period of six (6) months prescribed by Section 9 of the Law Reform Act.
k) That in all circumstances of the case, the application is mala fides and the orders sought therein only serve to annoy this honourable court, and thus it would not be in the interests of justice to allow it.
4. The issue of jurisdiction is a legal matter that must be addressed at the earliest opportunity. The Court of Appeal In the case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1, the court of appeal (Nyarangi JA) held as follows:
I think that it is reasonably plain that a question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the court seized of the matter is then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it. Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for continuing proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.
5. In this case, the respondent argued that the applicant did not comply with section 9(2) of the Law Reform Act, thereby preventing this court from adjudicating the dispute. Subsection 2 & 3 provides:
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. [Emphasis added]
6. The core tenet of the law is that he who makes an allegation bears the burden of proof. If the party cannot substantiate their claim, it will probably be dismissed, since a simple accusation alone does not constitute evidence. This principle is reflected in section 107 (1) of the Evidence Act, which states:
Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.
7. The respondent has not demonstrated that provisions of section 9(2) (3) of the Law Reform Act apply in this matter.
8. Though the applicant had applied for a notice to show cause why the clerk should not be held in contempt, in my view, this limb of the application is premature. No tribunal will take that direction at this stage.
9. Indebtedness has not been contested, and none of the claims has been disputed. The petition is granted as per prayer (a), with interest at court rates. The parties are tasked with agreeing on a schedule to settle the decretal amount and must report this agreement to the court within 14 days.
10. Costs of this application shall be borne by the respondent.
Delivered and signed at Nyandarua, this 26th day of May 2026
a) That an order of mandamus do issue to compel the Clerk, Nyandarua County Assembly, to pay the applicant the sum of Kshs. 496,470/= being the decretal amount owed to him in Nakuru Petition No E008 of 2021, together with costs and interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum effective from 17/5/2024, and further costs to be taxed until payment in full.
b) That the Clerk, Nyandarua County Assembly, shall comply by satisfying the decree costs and interest in Nakuru Petition No E008 of 2021 and further costs to be taxed within 21 days from the date of service of the order.
c) That in default, a notice to show cause be issued against the Clerk, Nyandarua County Assembly, to show cause why he/she should not or be cited for contempt of court.
d) That the cost of this application be provided for.
2. The application was premised on the following grounds:
a) That by a consent order recorded by the parties at Nakuru Petition No. E008 of 2021, the petition was allowed on the agreement that the County Assembly of Nyandarua would pay costs to the Applicant, and the same would be assessed by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court of Nakuru.
b) That consequently, the petitioner filed his bill of costs on 6/12/2022 and subsequently, by an order of the Deputy Registrar made on 28/4/2025, the petitioner's Bill of Costs aforesaid was assessed at Kshs.496,470/=.
c) Further, the Deputy Registrar issued a certificate of orders against the Government on said 28/4/2022 certifying the amount payable to the petitioner at Kshs 497,470/= with interest payable from 17/5/2024 until payment is made in full.
d) The respondent has refused to liquidate the same despite several demands to do so without any justification whatsoever.
e) That is now necessary to have the aforesaid proceedings and consent order at Nakuru Petition No. E008 of 2021 moved to this honourable court for the purposes of having the respondent compelled to perform his statutory duties.
f) That if such orders sought are not granted, then the regular consent order and certificate of costs aforesaid will be rendered in vain to great suffering and detriment on the part of the applicant.
3. The respondent opposed the application on the following grounds:
a) The application is frivolous, mischievous, lacking in merit, incompetent and is based on falsehoods, and the same has been brought in bad faith and ought to be dismissed.
b) It is not disputed that the Deputy Registrar, Nakuru High Court, taxed the applicant's bill of costs dated 6th December 2022 at Kshs. 496,470/=.
c) The certificate of costs was made on 17th May 2024 and issued on 24th February 2025, and the certificate of orders against the Government was issued on 28th April 2025.
d) The Applicant never served the said certificate of costs or certificate of orders against the Government upon, or the respondent, and therefore the respondent had no knowledge and/or notice that the said certificate of costs had been obtained.
e) the respondent cannot be held to be in contempt of an order that they were not aware of.
f) That it is clear beyond peradventure that there is no sufficient reason to warrant the court to issue a notice to show cause against the respondent in this matter.
g) It is a trite law that when a party elects to seek judicial review remedies under the Law Reform Act, he must strictly initiate the proceedings within the period prescribed by the Act because there is no jurisdiction to enlarge the limitation period prescribed by the Act.
h) That therefore this instant application was filed outside the 6 months limitation period for filing an application for judicial review orders as provided under section 9(2) of the Law Reform Act, the Act under which this instant application has been brought.
i) This honourable court has no jurisdiction to enlarge the limitation period prescribed under Sections 9(2) and 9(3) of the Law Reform Act.
j) The applicant's application must be dismissed in its entirety on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to enlarge the limitation period of six (6) months prescribed by Section 9 of the Law Reform Act.
k) That in all circumstances of the case, the application is mala fides and the orders sought therein only serve to annoy this honourable court, and thus it would not be in the interests of justice to allow it.
4. The issue of jurisdiction is a legal matter that must be addressed at the earliest opportunity. The Court of Appeal In the case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1, the court of appeal (Nyarangi JA) held as follows:
I think that it is reasonably plain that a question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the court seized of the matter is then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it. Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for continuing proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.
5. In this case, the respondent argued that the applicant did not comply with section 9(2) of the Law Reform Act, thereby preventing this court from adjudicating the dispute. Subsection 2 & 3 provides:
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. [Emphasis added]
6. The core tenet of the law is that he who makes an allegation bears the burden of proof. If the party cannot substantiate their claim, it will probably be dismissed, since a simple accusation alone does not constitute evidence. This principle is reflected in section 107 (1) of the Evidence Act, which states:
Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.
7. The respondent has not demonstrated that provisions of section 9(2) (3) of the Law Reform Act apply in this matter.
8. Though the applicant had applied for a notice to show cause why the clerk should not be held in contempt, in my view, this limb of the application is premature. No tribunal will take that direction at this stage.
9. Indebtedness has not been contested, and none of the claims has been disputed. The petition is granted as per prayer (a), with interest at court rates. The parties are tasked with agreeing on a schedule to settle the decretal amount and must report this agreement to the court within 14 days.
10. Costs of this application shall be borne by the respondent.
Delivered and signed at Nyandarua, this 26th day of May 2026