Judgment[2025] KEELC 18646
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Environment and LandLand Case
optional, rather, it is mandatory and a person does not choose whether to obey a court order or not...The courts should not fold their hands in helplessness and watch as their orders are disobeyed with impunity left, right and centre. This would amount to abdication of our sacrosanct duty bestowed on us by the Constitution.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Abdirahman & another v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 18471 (KLR) (19 December 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 18471 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT GARISSA ENVIRONMENT AND LAND PETITION E012 OF 2025 MN GICHERU, J DECEMBER 19, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010; IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 10(1) & (2), 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 40, 47, 50(1), 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68,
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: MADAN & NYARANGI JJ A, GACHUHI AG JA) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 145 OF 1985 BETWEEN NJOROGE..................................... APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC.................................RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (CORAM: KNELLER, HANCOX & NYARANGI JJA) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 177 OF 1984 BETWEEN KARIUKI & ANOTHER .................... APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC......................................
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The court dismissed the applicant's motion for mandamus to compel payment from Embu County Government and its officials, as the applicant failed to obtain the required certificate of order under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, which mandates that 21 days after judgment or taxation of costs, a certificate must be issued before enforcement. The court found the applicant only provided a judgment and consent agreement but not the necessary certificates, making the application premature and without costs.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The court dismissed the respondents' preliminary objection to the judicial review application, ruling that the objection passed muster due to legal issues of form and substance. The court held that the applicant failed to comply with the ELRC Procedure Rules 2024 and Mutunga Rules by not securing leave for judicial review proceedings, not suing as a public entity, and misstating the relief sought. The court struck out the suit with costs, emphasizing that the applicant must file proper pleadings under the rules to enforce constitutional rights.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The court dismissed the ex parte applicant's application for certiorari to quash a recommendation by the first respondent to revoke the applicant's appointment as political advisor. The applicant failed to exhaust alternative remedies under Section 77 of the County Government Act, which requires appealing to the Public Service Commission before seeking judicial review. The court held that the applicant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying court intervention and had not filed written submissions in response to preliminary objections. The application was struck out with costs to the respondents.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu granted judicial review of the Applicant's motion seeking mandamus to compel County Government of Kisii officials to pay Kshs.7,453,047.76 withheld salaries, interest, and Kshs.1,000,000 damages. The Applicant had won a prior judgment against the County Government and obtained a Certificate of Order Against the Government, but the respondents failed to respond to the motion despite being served. The court determined that the respondents were obligated under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act to pay the amounts due, as the County Government was served with the judgment and had the duty to comply with the Certificate of Order Against the Government.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The applicant sought judicial review against the termination of his employment by the 1st respondent, which was upheld by the Public Service Commission. The court granted certiorari to quash the commission's decision, ordered reinstatement to his previous position as Director Supply Chain Management with payment of 12 months' salary for irregular redeployment and redesignation, and prohibited implementation of the termination decision. The court found the termination unlawful due to lack of proper disciplinary process and irregular redeployment, despite the applicant's protest and the commission's award of compensation.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The court determined that the applicant, Clifford Otieno Obiero, is entitled to payment of Kshs.473,212 for legal services rendered in Kisumu ELRC No. E003 of 2020. The respondents, Kisumu County Government and related entities, had received the Certificate of Costs and Certificate of Order Against the Government on 6th March, 2025, but claimed no funds were budgeted for the amount due. The court found that the respondents failed to provide reasonable time to comply with the payment demand and did not follow proper procedures to address the outstanding costs, thus granting mandamus to compel payment despite the respondents' budgetary concerns.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The court determined that the respondent County Government of Migori had not demonstrated a genuine dispute on the amount claimed for gratuity, and thus the applicant's motion for mandamus to compel payment of Kshs.7,005,791 was granted. The court found that the respondent had received the Certificate of Order against it and failed to challenge the amount or provide a counter figure, despite having sufficient time to object. The court rejected the respondent's argument about budgetary constraints as insufficient justification for non-payment, emphasizing that public bodies must honor court orders without delay.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu granted an order of mandamus to compel the respondents (County Government of Kisumu and related entities) to pay Kshs.561,683.71 with interest and costs ordered in a prior petition (Kisumu PETITION NO. 36 OF 2017) that the applicants won. The court found the respondents' failure to comply with the Certificate of Order of Costs Against the Government, despite the applicants' efforts to execute the decree, and noted that the respondents did not respond to the application but were granted leave to file responses. The court concluded that the order of mandamus was enforceable as the application was unopposed and granted by consent, with the respondents failing to act on court directions regarding responses and submissions.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtJudicial Review
The court dismissed the ex-parte motion seeking contempt of court orders against the 2nd Respondent for allegedly disregarding the court's April 27, 2023 orders. The motion claimed the 2nd Respondent was in contempt by prosecuting Misc. Application No. 1 of 2021, which sought enforcement of the 1st Respondent's March 3, 2021 decision. The court found the motion was overtaken by events as the court had already ruled on the Misc. Application on July 26, 2024, rendering the contempt proceedings without merit. The court dismissed the motion with costs, noting the 2nd Respondent's actions were not contemptuous as the court had previously resolved the matter.