Republic v County Government of Marsabit & another; Budima Contractors & Suppliers Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 735 (KLR) (26 January 2026) (Judgment)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 735
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 735 (KLR)
- Decided
- 26 January 2026
The court finds that an order of mandamus should issue against the 1st respondent (County Governor) for the satisfaction of the decree due to the joint responsibility of the County Executive Committee Member of Finance and the County Treasury.
Facts
The applicant seeks an order compelling the County Governor and County Government of Marsabit to pay them Kshs 8,600,000 plus costs and interest ordered by Hon. Christine Wekesa (SPM) in Marsabit SPMCC No E002 of 2022.
Issues
- Whether an order of mandamus should issue in the circumstances
Reasoning
The court applies the principles of mandamus, considering the public legal duty to act, the clear right to the performance of the duty, and the absence of an adequate remedy. The 1st respondent is found jointly responsible for the satisfaction of the decree.
Outcome
The application is allowed against the 1st respondent for the payment of the decree, but the applicant must first extract and serve the certificate of order against the Government. The suit against the 2nd respondent (Governor) is dismissed.
Orders
- Order of mandamus against the 1st respondent for the payment of the decree
- Dismissal of the suit against the 2nd respondent
Remedies
- Payment of the decree by the 1st respondent
- Stay of execution for 60 days
Authorities cited
Legislation (1)
- Public Finance Management Act No 18 of 2012
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
Loading judgment…