A law firm has won three cases against the County Executive Committee Member (CECM) in charge of Finance and Economic Planning at the county government of Mombasa who was ordered to pay it a total of KES 41.6 million for legal services rendered to the devolved unit.
Justice Yuvinalis Angima of the Environment and Land Court (ELC) in Mombasa further ordered that the payments to Miller and Company Advocates be made together with interest of 14 per cent per annum until payment in full.
In the first case, the court ordered the CECM Finance and Economic Planning to pay the law firm KES 38 million together with interest of 14 per cent per annum from December 11, 2024, until payment in full.
The court noted that there was no doubt from the material on record that the county government was truly indebted to Miller and Company Advocates and that there was no indication on record of any pending reference or appeal on the issue of the devolved unit’s liability to settle the claim.
“The court is satisfied that the county government of Mombasa was duly made aware of the certificate of order against the government through the office of the County Attorney. Neither the county government or the CECM has made any effort this far to settle the decretal amount,” ruled Justice Angima.
The judge noted that it was clear from the content of the replying affidavit that they are not prepared to do so without a coercive order.
“The court is satisfied that the second respondent (CECM) has a statutory duty to settle the decretal amount as required by law and that an order of mandamus should issue,” ruled the judge.
The court also noted that it was of the view that no order should be issued against the county government, Chief Officer Revenue Administration at the county, County Secretary, County Attorney and the Chief Finance Officer/County Treasurer (also respondents) since the specific duty of payment falls upon the CECM Finance and Economic Planning.
It also noted that the material on record shows that the respondents failed to settle the decretal amount despite reasonable notice that was issued to them three months before the application was made.
“The court is of the view that the respondents are merely trying to invoke technicalities of procedure to evade their obligation to settle the decretal amount. They do not have a genuine and bonafide defence to the applicants claim,” ruled the court.
The court noted that as submitted by Miller and Company Advocates, they have no other remedy other than Mandamus since they cannot execute against the respondents.
“There no compelling reason why the respondents should not settle the decretal amount,” ruled the court.
According to Miller and Company Advocates, the respondents instructed it to act for the county government of Mombasa in an application at the Environment and Land Court.
The applicant (Miller and Company) argued that it continued to act until the respondents failed to provide instructions necessitating it to cease acting.
The law firm told the court that it submitted a fee note to the respondents who refused to settle it prompting the applicant to file a bill of costs which was taxed and a certificate of costs was served upon them.
It says that following the taxation, it made an application to court to adopt the certificate of costs as judgment and that on July 30, 2026, it (application) was allowed and the court entered judgment against the respondents.
In addition, the law firm says that the court adopted the certificate of costs as decree of the court and granted it liberty to execute.
Miller and Company Advocates told the court that despite serving the respondents with the certificate of order they had refused to settle the amount.
The respondents opposed the application by Miller and Company Advocates saying that it was premature and defective as no evidence had been adduced that they had refused to satisfy the decretal sum and costs awarded.
They further argued that the applicant had not demonstrated that service was effected upon the CECM Finance and Economic Planning who is the head of county treasury and lawful accounting officer responsible for payment of county funds.
The respondents also argued that the CECM Finance and Economic Planning is bound by the Public Finance Management Act on how to plan, budget, appropriate and expend the county budget.
They also argued that the decretal money could only be paid after it had been factored into the forthcoming budget cycle and approved by the County Assembly.
In the other two similar cases, the CECM Finance and Planning was ordered to pay the law firm KES 2.7 million and KES 880,624 together with interest of 14 per cent per annum from December 11, 2024, and January 22, 2025, respectively till payment in full.
Be the First to Comment