[2023] KEHC 3518 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had followed the correct statutory procedure by obtaining and serving a certificate of order against the respondents after judgment in Nyeri CMCC No 309 of 2016. Despite the respondents' argument that their insurer was responsible for payment and that some payments may have been...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 3518 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Muchiri Gicheru (Suing as Personal Representative to the Estate of Esther Wangechi Muchiri – Deceased); Respondent: County Government of Nyeri; Respondent: The County Secretary County Government of Nyeri
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review E009 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Order of Mandamus
- Outcome
- Application for order of mandamus allowed.
- Judges
- M Muya
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Mandamus, Government Liability, Enforcement of Judgments
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Joseph Muchiri Gicheru (Suing as Personal Representative to the Estate of Esther Wangechi Muchiri – Deceased)
Applicant
County Government of Nyeri
Respondent
The County Secretary County Government of Nyeri
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Order of Mandamus
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an order of mandamus should issue to compel the County Government of Nyeri and the County Secretary to pay the decretal sum awarded in Nyeri CMCC No 309 of 2016.
- 2 Whether the respondents had a public legal duty to settle the decretal sum after judgment and service of the certificate of order.
- 3 Whether the existence of an insurer and alleged payments by the insurer preclude the issuance of mandamus against the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had followed the correct statutory procedure by obtaining and serving a certificate of order against the respondents after judgment in Nyeri CMCC No 309 of 2016. Despite the respondents' argument that their insurer was responsible for payment and that some payments may have been made, the court noted that no evidence of payment was disclosed and the decretal sum remained unsettled. The court held that the respondents had a public legal duty to satisfy the judgment and that the requirements for mandamus were met: a clear legal duty, prior demand, reasonable time to comply, and no adequate alternative remedy, as the applicant had not received full payment....
Court Disposition
Application for order of mandamus allowed.
Orders
- An order of mandamus is issued compelling the County Government of Nyeri and the County Secretary to pay the decretal sum of Ksh 1,851,100 being general damages, costs, and interest in Nyeri CMCC No 309 of 2016 within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
Gicheru (Suing as Personal Representative to the Estate of Esther Wangechi Muchiri – Deceased) v County Government Of Nyeri & another (Judicial Review E009 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 3518 (KLR) (27 April 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 3518 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nyeri
Judicial Review E009 of 2022
M Muya, J
April 27, 2023
Between
Joseph Muchiri Gicheru (Suing as Personal Representative to the Estate of Esther Wangechi Muchiri – Deceased)
Applicant
and
County Government of Nyeri
1st Respondent
The County Secretary County Government of Nyeri
2nd Respondent
Ruling
Background 1. On September 20, 2022 leave to file judicial review proceedings were granted by this court.The notice of Motion dated the 28th day of September 2022 seeks an order for mandamus directed against the Respondent herein, the County Government of Nyeri and the County Secretary – Nyeri County Government, to compel them to proceed and pay out the decretal sum of Ksh 1,851,100/- being general damages, costs and interest in Nyeri CMCC No309 of 2016 whose Judgement was delivered on June 30, 2021, and accruing interest and costs.
2. The grounds are that the applicant instituted a suit in Nyeri Civil Case No 309 of 2016 against the Respondent and or his driver seeking for Judgement for special damages general damages under both the Law Reform Act and the Fatal Accidents Act, Costs and Interest.
3. On 30th day of June 2021 Hon. Kagendo delivered Judgment in favour of the applicant and was awarded a sum of Kshs 1,500,000/= for pain and suffering loss of expectation for life and loss of dependency plus costs assessed at Kshs 276,100/= and Interest.
4. A certificate of order against the Respondent was issued on 9th June 2022 but the Respondent refused and or ignored to settle the same.
5. That this ignorance and or refusal prompted the applicants to seek leave of the court to commence these Judicial Review proceedings to compel the Respondent to pay the applicant.
Analysis and determination 6. The Respondent concedes that the applicant did follow the right procedure as set out in section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
7. The only departure, as they argue is that the allegation that they ignored and or refused to settle the decretal amount is not true.The motor vehicle, subject of the primary suit was insured by monarch insurance company limited and they were the ones required to settle the decretal amount.
8. It is the contention by the Respondents that the applicant was quite aware of the correspondence between the Respondents and the insurer.
9. That the Respondents were not granted enough and or reasonable time to comply.
10. Further the applicant has had another adequate remedy at his disposal, the declaratory suit by the 1st Respondent against the insurer, that the applicant has received substantial payments from the Respondents insurer, if not all.
11. Reliance is placed in the case of RepublicvPrincipal Secretary, Ministry of internal Security and another exparte Schon Noorani &another(2018) eKLR where it was held:-“mandamus is an equitable remedy that serves to compel a public authority to perform its public legal duty, and it is a remedy that controls procedural delays. The test for mandamus is set out in the case of A potex Inc v Canada (Attorney General) and was also discussed in Dragan v Canada (minister of Citizenship and immigration). The eight factors that must be present for the writ to issue are:-1. There must be a public legal duty to act;2. The duty must be owed to the applicants
3. There must be a clear right to the performance of that duty, meaning that;a.The applicants have satisfied all conditions precedent; andb.There must have beeni.A prior demand for performance .ii.A reasonable time to comply with the demand, unless, there was outright refusal, andiii.An express refusal, or an implied refusal through unreasonable delay.iv.No other adequate remedy is available to the applicants.v.The order sought must be of some practical value or effect.vi.There is no equitable bar to the relief sought.vii.On a balance of Convenience mandamus should lie.
12. The court notes that the Judgment was delivered in June, 2021. The Respondent has not settled the decretal sum. The certificate of order was served on March 31, 2022 and a declaratory suit filed on July 25, 2022.
13. It is the contention by the Respondents that their insurer has made payments.
14. The amount paid if any is not disclosed. I find the application for an order of mandamus has merit and it’s allowed as prayed. Full payment to be effected within 30 days from today.
RULING READ AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023. HON JUSTICE MARTIN M. MUYAJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Kimonyo…………….Applicant……………………………1st Respondent…………………………….2nd RespondentCourt Assistant: Kinyua