By Andrew Kariuki

The Environment and Land Court in Mombasa has ordered the County Government of Mombasa to pay Ksh2,721,861.36 to Miller & Company Advocates in a long-running legal fees dispute.

In a judgment delivered on March 19, 2026, the court issued an order of mandamus directing the County Executive Committee Member for Finance and Economic Planning to settle the decretal sum together with interest at 14% per annum from January 22, 2025 until payment in full.

The case arose from a claim by the law firm, represented by advocate Cecil Miller, seeking to compel the county to pay legal fees awarded in ELC Miscellaneous Application No. E049 of 2024.

Court documents show that Miller & Company Advocates had been instructed to act for the county in ELC Petition No. E049 of 2021. After the county allegedly failed to provide further instructions, the firm ceased acting and subsequently submitted a fee note, which was not settled.

The firm then filed a bill of costs, which was taxed on January 22, 2025 at Ksh2,721,861.36, and a certificate of costs issued on January 23, 2025. The court later adopted the certificate as a judgment on July 30, 2025, effectively converting it into a decretal sum enforceable against the county.

Despite being served with the certificate of order against the government, the county failed to settle the amount, prompting the law firm to move to court seeking an order of mandamus to compel payment.

In response, the county opposed the application, arguing that only the County Executive Committee Member for Finance had the statutory mandate to authorise expenditure. It also contended that the claim had not been properly budgeted for and could only be paid after approval in a future budget cycle.

However, the court found that the applicant had sufficiently served the respondents through the Office of the County Attorney and that the county was aware of the decree.

The judge held that the county had failed to settle the decretal amount despite reasonable notice and had instead relied on procedural technicalities to delay payment.

“There is no compelling reason why the respondents should not settle the decretal amount,” the court noted, adding that the county had no genuine defence to the claim.

The court further ruled that the duty to settle the amount lay specifically with the County Executive Committee Member for Finance and Economic Planning and declined to issue orders against the other respondents.

As part of its final orders, the court suspended enforcement of the mandamus order until July 1, 2026 to allow the county time to make necessary budgetary arrangements for payment.

The claims against the other respondents were dismissed, with the court directing that each party bear its own costs.

The ruling underscores the legal obligation of public entities to settle court-awarded debts and clarifies that budgetary constraints do not absolve government institutions from complying with court orders.