[2011] KEHC 1825 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant was entitled to seek an order of mandamus to compel the respondent, a public body, to settle the decretal sum, costs, and interest as decreed in his favour. The pendency of an appeal does not, in itself, bar the grant of an order of mandamus, as there are established legal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1825 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Kiraga Njuguna; Respondent: Town Clerk Municipal Council of Eldoret
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 23 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Order of mandamus granted as prayed. Respondent to pay costs.
- Legal Topics
- Mandamus Orders, Enforcement of Decrees, Public Body Liability
- 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
John Kiraga Njuguna
Applicant
Town Clerk Municipal Council of Eldoret
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an order of mandamus should issue to compel the respondent to pay the decretal sum, costs, and interest as decreed in Eldoret CMCC No. 839 of 2006.
- 2 Whether the pendency of an appeal operates as a bar to the grant of an order of mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant was entitled to seek an order of mandamus to compel the respondent, a public body, to settle the decretal sum, costs, and interest as decreed in his favour. The pendency of an appeal does not, in itself, bar the grant of an order of mandamus, as there are established legal provisions for seeking a stay of execution or proceedings, which the respondent had not obtained. The respondent's failure to settle the decree, despite repeated demands and unsuccessful execution attempts, justified the grant of the relief sought. The court found no legal impediment to granting the order of mandamus and directed the respondent to pay the sums due as per the decree,...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Order of mandamus granted as prayed. Respondent to pay costs.
Orders
- An order of mandamus shall issue compelling the respondent to pay the applicant the decretal amount, costs, and interest as decreed in Eldoret CMCC No. 839 of 2006.
- The respondent shall pay the costs of the Notice of Motion.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 23 OF 2010
JOHN KIRAGA NJUGUNA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE TOWN CLERK MUNICIPALCOUNCIL OF ELDORET:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
On 21st July, 2010, Mwilu J. granted to the applicant leave to apply for an order of mandamus compelling the Town Clerk Municipal Council of Eldoret, the respondent to pay the applicant the decretal amount, costs and interest decreed in his favour in Eldoret CMCC NO. 839 of 2006 in which the applicant was the plaintiff and the respondent and one Modestus Wabwire Omondi were defendants.
Pursuant to the leave, the applicant lodged this Notice of Motion on 11th August, 2010 seeking the said relief. The main grounds for the application are that the applicant obtained judgment against the respondent and the said Modestus Wabwire Omondi in the said case in the sum of Kshs. 295,323/- plus costs and interest; that costs were, by consent, assessed a Kshs. 75,000/- and a decree issued on 15th October, 2009; that the respondent is enjoined to settle their said sums but has refused and/or ignored to do so hence this application.
There is a supporting affidavit which elaborates the above grounds. Annexed to the said affidavit are copies of the decree sought to be enforced and previous attempts to execute the same decree.
The application is opposed by the respondent and there is a replying affidavit sworn by Stanslas Ondimu, the Town Clerk. It is deponed in the affidavit, inter alia, that the judgment entered against the respondent is being challenged in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2009 which is pending determination; that because of the pending appeal the applicant is not entitled to seek the relief sought herein and the respondent would seek to stay these proceedings; and that the application is incompetent.
The parties filed written submission with the leave of the court. The submissions reiterate the stand-points taken by the parties in their respective pleadings.
I have considered the application; the pleadings filed and the submissions of counsel. I have also given due consideration to the authorities cited to me. Having done so, I take the following view of this matter.
The applicants’ case is simple and straight forward. It is that he sued the Municipal Council of Eldoret in Eldoret CMCC NO 839 of 2006 and succeeded. He was awarded Kshs. 295,323. 00 plus costs and interest. Costs were assessed, by consent at Kshs. 75,000/- and a decree subsequently issued. The said sum remains unpaid and efforts to recover the sum have yielded no useful results. In the premises, he resorted to this mode of enforcement.
The respondent’s case is also simple and straightforward. He says the said judgment is being challenged on appeal and cannot be the subject of this Judicial Review Proceedings. It even threatened to apply to stay these proceedings.
An order of mandamus compels a public body or person to perform a duty imposed upon it or him by law where the public body or person has refused to perform the duty. The respondent is required by Law to settle decrees issued against the Municipal Council of Eldoret. The applicant has previously sought settlement of the said decretal sums plus costs and interest without success. To my mind he was entitled to move this court by way of the judicial review order of mandamus. It is not an answer, in my view, that there is a pending appeal. If the respondent desired to stay execution there are known provisions for that. If it also desired to stay these proceedings there are known provisions for the same.
There is therefore no impediment to the granting of the relief sought. The applicant, in my view, is entitled to the relief sought. An order shall therefore issue as prayed in paragraph 1 of the Notice of Motion. The respondent shall pay the costs of the Notice of Motion.
Orders accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET
THIS 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
Read in the presence of:-
Mr. Barasa H/B for Mr. Gicheru for the Respondent
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
5TH AUGUST, 2011