1. By Notice of Motion dated 13th May, 2025, the ex parte applicant invoked order 53, rule 1, (1), (2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking the following judicial review reliefs in the nature of mandamus. Specifically, the applicant prayed:
1. THAT an order of mandamus do issue against the 1st and 2nd respondents, the County Executive Committee Member for Finance and the County Chief Officer of the County Government of Machakos, compelling them to forthwith and without delay, perform their duty by causing to be paid to the applicant out of the revenue of the County Government of Mombasa the sum of Kshs. 1,349,910.96 (one million three hundred and forty-nine thousand nine hundred and ten and ninety-six cents) together with accrued interest at 14% per annum from 21st November 2017 until payment in full;
2. THAT costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is supported by the grounds on its face, the applicant’s affidavit, and the accompanying statement. The applicant averred that he had been retained by the Municipal Council of Machakos, now the County Government of Machakos, to provide legal services on its behalf. Despite rendering those services and raising fee notes, the fees remained unpaid.
3. This Court notes that the prayer sought by the applicant is internally inconsistent. The order of mandamus is directed at officials of the County Government of Machakos, yet it seeks to compel them to cause payment from the revenue of the County Government of Mombasa.
4. While this inconsistency might at first glance appear to be a typographical error on the part of the applicant, the defect is compounded by the supporting affidavit, which expressly confirms that the certificate of order against the government in respect of the decree herein was served upon the County Attorney of Mombasa. In light of this, the Court cannot make assumptions as to the applicant’s intention or attempt to cure the defect by speculation. Judicial orders must be precise, clear, and directed to the proper parties; ambiguity or misdirection in the framing of reliefs renders them unenforceable.
5. The contradiction between the parties cited and the source of funds sought undermines the very foundation of the application. It is trite that county governments are distinct and independent entities under the Constitution. Each county has its own revenue basket and financial autonomy. The County Executive Committee Member for Finance of one county has no authority to direct or authorize the withdrawal of funds from another county’s revenue. In this case, the County Government of Machakos cannot lawfully cause payment from the revenue of the County Government of Mombasa. Even if the applicant intended otherwise, no evidence has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the respondents have any legal mandate over the revenue of Mombasa County. The orders sought are therefore not only misconceived but also legally untenable and incapable of implementation.
6. Accordingly, the application suffers from incurable defects both in form and substance. The Court cannot grant orders that are vague, misdirected, or beyond the lawful authority of the respondents. The application is struck out. Given that the respondents did not enter appearance, there shall be no orders as to costs.
It is so ordered.
Dated and Delivered at Machakos this 9th day of April 2026.
1. THAT an order of mandamus do issue against the 1st and 2nd respondents, the County Executive Committee Member for Finance and the County Chief Officer of the County Government of Machakos, compelling them to forthwith and without delay, perform their duty by causing to be paid to the applicant out of the revenue of the County Government of Mombasa the sum of Kshs. 1,349,910.96 (one million three hundred and forty-nine thousand nine hundred and ten and ninety-six cents) together with accrued interest at 14% per annum from 21st November 2017 until payment in full;
2. THAT costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is supported by the grounds on its face, the applicant’s affidavit, and the accompanying statement. The applicant averred that he had been retained by the Municipal Council of Machakos, now the County Government of Machakos, to provide legal services on its behalf. Despite rendering those services and raising fee notes, the fees remained unpaid.
3. This Court notes that the prayer sought by the applicant is internally inconsistent. The order of mandamus is directed at officials of the County Government of Machakos, yet it seeks to compel them to cause payment from the revenue of the County Government of Mombasa.
4. While this inconsistency might at first glance appear to be a typographical error on the part of the applicant, the defect is compounded by the supporting affidavit, which expressly confirms that the certificate of order against the government in respect of the decree herein was served upon the County Attorney of Mombasa. In light of this, the Court cannot make assumptions as to the applicant’s intention or attempt to cure the defect by speculation. Judicial orders must be precise, clear, and directed to the proper parties; ambiguity or misdirection in the framing of reliefs renders them unenforceable.
5. The contradiction between the parties cited and the source of funds sought undermines the very foundation of the application. It is trite that county governments are distinct and independent entities under the Constitution. Each county has its own revenue basket and financial autonomy. The County Executive Committee Member for Finance of one county has no authority to direct or authorize the withdrawal of funds from another county’s revenue. In this case, the County Government of Machakos cannot lawfully cause payment from the revenue of the County Government of Mombasa. Even if the applicant intended otherwise, no evidence has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the respondents have any legal mandate over the revenue of Mombasa County. The orders sought are therefore not only misconceived but also legally untenable and incapable of implementation.
6. Accordingly, the application suffers from incurable defects both in form and substance. The Court cannot grant orders that are vague, misdirected, or beyond the lawful authority of the respondents. The application is struck out. Given that the respondents did not enter appearance, there shall be no orders as to costs.
It is so ordered.
Dated and Delivered at Machakos this 9th day of April 2026.