1. The Plaintiff has filed before this court a request for the entry of judgment against the Defendants on the basis that, although they were duly served with summons to enter appearance, they have failed to file their respective statements of defence within the time prescribed by law.
2. The record shows that the Defendants did in fact enter appearance following service of summons, thereby acknowledging the suit, but have since neglected and/or failed to take the subsequent procedural step of filing their defences as required under the applicable procedural rules.
3. Consequently, the Plaintiff has moved the Court by way of a request for judgment dated 15th December, 2025, seeking the entry of judgment against the Defendants in default of defence. The request relates to a claim for a liquidated sum in the amount of Ksh.21,400,000/-, together with interest thereon and the costs of the suit as pleaded in the Plaint.
4. The question that then abounds, which I raise sua sponte is whether interlocutory judgment can properly be entered against a County Government without leave of the court.
5. The applicable law is in this regard found under Civil Procedure Rules, specifically Order 10 Rule 8, which provides as follows:
“No judgment in default of appearance or pleading may be entered against the Government without the leave of the court and any application for such leave shall be served not less than seven days before the return day.”
6. County Governments, though distinct corporate entities created under the Constitution, are treated as government entities for purposes of litigation relating to procedural safeguards afforded to government bodies. The same applies to offices falling under County Governments, such as that of the 2nd Defendant.
7. The procedural protection under Order 10 Rule 8 extends to County Governments. In Gukem Construction Limited v Nairobi City County (2025) KEHC 435 (KLR), the High Court held that interlocutory judgment entered against a County Government without first obtaining leave of the court was irregular and liable to be set aside. The Court emphasized that the rule is couched in mandatory terms and exists to prevent the entry of default judgments against public entities without judicial oversight.
8. Procedural rules governing suits against the Government must be strictly complied with, noting that failure to follow mandatory procedural safeguards renders subsequent steps in the proceedings defective. The rationale underlying this requirement is that public bodies perform public functions and are therefore afforded limited procedural protection to ensure public resources are not exposed to default judgments without the court first being satisfied that such a step is justified.
9. In the circumstances, the court finds that interlocutory judgment cannot be regularly entered against the Defendants without prior leave of the court as required under Order 10 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Any such judgment entered without compliance with that provision is irregular and liable to be set aside ex debito justitiae.
10. The Plaintiff retains the liberty to appropriately move the court.
11. The matter will be mentioned for directions on 11th June, 2026.
DELIVERED (virtually), DATED & SIGNED this 9th day of March, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE
FOR APPELLANT: No appearance.
FOR RESPONDENT: No appearance.
COURT ASSISTANTS: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.
2. The record shows that the Defendants did in fact enter appearance following service of summons, thereby acknowledging the suit, but have since neglected and/or failed to take the subsequent procedural step of filing their defences as required under the applicable procedural rules.
3. Consequently, the Plaintiff has moved the Court by way of a request for judgment dated 15th December, 2025, seeking the entry of judgment against the Defendants in default of defence. The request relates to a claim for a liquidated sum in the amount of Ksh.21,400,000/-, together with interest thereon and the costs of the suit as pleaded in the Plaint.
4. The question that then abounds, which I raise sua sponte is whether interlocutory judgment can properly be entered against a County Government without leave of the court.
5. The applicable law is in this regard found under Civil Procedure Rules, specifically Order 10 Rule 8, which provides as follows:
“No judgment in default of appearance or pleading may be entered against the Government without the leave of the court and any application for such leave shall be served not less than seven days before the return day.”
6. County Governments, though distinct corporate entities created under the Constitution, are treated as government entities for purposes of litigation relating to procedural safeguards afforded to government bodies. The same applies to offices falling under County Governments, such as that of the 2nd Defendant.
7. The procedural protection under Order 10 Rule 8 extends to County Governments. In Gukem Construction Limited v Nairobi City County (2025) KEHC 435 (KLR), the High Court held that interlocutory judgment entered against a County Government without first obtaining leave of the court was irregular and liable to be set aside. The Court emphasized that the rule is couched in mandatory terms and exists to prevent the entry of default judgments against public entities without judicial oversight.
8. Procedural rules governing suits against the Government must be strictly complied with, noting that failure to follow mandatory procedural safeguards renders subsequent steps in the proceedings defective. The rationale underlying this requirement is that public bodies perform public functions and are therefore afforded limited procedural protection to ensure public resources are not exposed to default judgments without the court first being satisfied that such a step is justified.
9. In the circumstances, the court finds that interlocutory judgment cannot be regularly entered against the Defendants without prior leave of the court as required under Order 10 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Any such judgment entered without compliance with that provision is irregular and liable to be set aside ex debito justitiae.
10. The Plaintiff retains the liberty to appropriately move the court.
11. The matter will be mentioned for directions on 11th June, 2026.
DELIVERED (virtually), DATED & SIGNED this 9th day of March, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO
JUDGE
FOR APPELLANT: No appearance.
FOR RESPONDENT: No appearance.
COURT ASSISTANTS: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.