SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Republic v Principal Secretary Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development & another; Githinji (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E009 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 6263 (KLR) (7 May 2026) (Ruling)

[2026] KEHC 6263 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court
Case number
6263
Citation
[2026] KEHC 6263 (KLR)
Decided
7 May 2026
Judge
HM Nyaga
Parties
raw · defendants · plaintiffs
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureApplication for mandamusCoramHM Nyaga
Holding

The ex-parte applicant is entitled to the mandamus order to compel the respondents to pay the decretal sum of Ksh.6,682,518.69 and interest thereon.

Facts

The ex-parte applicant, James Kariuki Githinji, entered into a contract with the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development for construction of a community-based grain drying and storage facility. He completed the construction but the ministry failed to pay him Ksh.6,682,518.69. The applicant filed a suit and won, but the ministry did not pay the judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the ex-parte applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought

Reasoning

The court found that the respondents failed to perform their statutory and judicial obligations and issued a mandamus order.

Outcome

The ex-parte applicant is awarded the mandamus order.

Orders

  • An order of mandamus to compel the respondents to pay the ex-parte applicant the sum of Ksh. 6,682,518.69 together with the interest thereon

Remedies

  • Costs and interest of Ksh.381,376.96 awarded to the ex-parte applicant in MERU-CMCC NO.55 OF 2019
  • Costs of this application

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Government Proceedings Act
Cases cited (2)
  • Republic vs Kenya National Examinations Council ex parte Gathenji and 9 Others
  • Republic vs Principal Secretary, Ministry of Internal Security & another ex parte Schon Noorani & Another
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case