In a judgment delivered by the Environment and Land Court in Mombasa, the County Executive Committee Member (CECM) in charge of Finance was directed to pay Miller & Company Advocates Ksh.2,721,861.36, together with interest at 14 per cent per year from January 22, 2025, until payment in full.
The dispute dates back to November 2021, when the law firm was instructed to act for the county in a land petition.
The firm later withdrew from acting after the county allegedly failed to provide further instructions. It subsequently submitted its fee note, which went unpaid, forcing it to file a bill of costs in court.
The bill was taxed on January 22, 2025, and a certificate of costs was issued the following day. The firm then successfully applied to have the certificate adopted as a court judgment on July 30, 2025, paving the way for enforcement.
A certificate of order against the government was issued on September 1, 2025 and served on the county.
However, despite these steps, the county did not settle the amount. Court documents show that the law firm issued a demand and even served the Office of the County Attorney with the decree and subsequent applications in October and November 2025.
In response, the county opposed the application, arguing that several officials had been wrongly sued and that only the finance CECM had the legal authority to approve and release funds.
The county also claimed there was no proof that the relevant accounting officer had been properly served.
Further, the county maintained that the payment could not be made immediately because the decretal sum had not been included in the current financial year’s budget.
It argued that any payment outside the approved budget would violate the Public Finance Management Act and would require approval by the County Assembly in a future budget cycle.
But the court rejected these arguments, finding that service through the Office of the County Attorney was sufficient, as the office is mandated to advise and represent all county departments.
The judge noted that there was no dispute over the debt and no pending appeal or challenge against the taxed costs. The court also found that the county had taken no steps to settle the amount and appeared unwilling to do so without being compelled.
“The respondents have failed to settle the decretal amount despite reasonable notice and are merely invoking procedural technicalities to evade their obligation,” the court observed.
The judge held that the CECM in charge of finance has a statutory duty to pay the debt and that an order of mandamus was the only effective remedy available to the law firm, since execution cannot issue against government entities.
However, the court limited the order to the finance CECM, dismissing claims against the other respondents, including various county officials, on the basis that they do not bear the legal responsibility for payment.
In a partial reprieve for the county, the court suspended the enforcement of the order until July 1, 2026, to allow the finance department time to make the necessary budgetary arrangements.
Although the law firm succeeded in obtaining the order, the court declined to award costs, noting that it had only succeeded against one of the six respondents. Each party will therefore bear its own legal costs.
