[2013] KEHC 4224 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had obtained a valid decree and a certificate of order against the government, which had not been satisfied for over sixteen years despite repeated requests. The respondent did not oppose the application for mandamus. The court held that mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 4224 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ramla Lali Bakari; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 38 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Mandamus
- Outcome
- Application for mandamus granted.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Mandamus, Government Liability, Enforcement of Decrees
- 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
Ramla Lali Bakari
Applicant
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Mandamus
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an order of mandamus should issue to compel payment of a decretal sum by the government to the applicant.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to enforcement of a decree against the government after prolonged non-payment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had obtained a valid decree and a certificate of order against the government, which had not been satisfied for over sixteen years despite repeated requests. The respondent did not oppose the application for mandamus. The court held that mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel the government to fulfill its statutory obligation to pay the decretal sum, as the applicant had exhausted all other avenues for enforcement. The prolonged delay in payment justified the grant of the order sought.
Court Disposition
Application for mandamus granted.
Orders
- An order of mandamus is issued compelling the Permanent Secretary, Office of the President, to pay Kshs. 1,146,747.76 being the decretal sum plus interest to the applicant in satisfaction of the decree issued on 30th October, 1995 in SRM Civil Suit No. 499 of 1991.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Mombasa
Judicial Review 38 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S (MOMBASA) CIVIL SUIT NO. 499 OF 1991 – RAMLA LALI BAKARI VERSUS THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: DECREE DATED 30TH OCTOBER, 1995 IN SRMC (MOMBASA) CIVIL SUIT NO. 499 OF 1991 RAMLA LALI BAKARI VERSUS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BETWEEN
RAMLA LALI BAKARI………………….……………………...APPLICANT
AND
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL………………..…..RESPONDENT
THE PERMANENT SECRETARY (OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT) –NAIROBI…………….……………INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
This is the Notice of Motion dated 13th July, 2012 by which the applicant seeks orders that:
“An order of mandamus do issue compelling the Interested Party herein being the Permanent Secretary, Office of the President to pay Kshs. 1,146,747. 76 being the decretal sum plus interest thereon arising out of and calculated from the sum of Kshs. 187,059. 40 (decretal sum) as at 31st July, 1996 accruing interest at the rate of 12% per annum interest and costs to the applicant in satisfaction of the decree issued on 30th October, 1995 in SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT (MSA) CIVIL SUIT NO. 499 OF 1991 RAMLA LALI BAKARI VS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.”
The application was supported by the annexed affidavit of the applicant. MR. TAIB appeared for the applicant whilst MR. EREGI acted for the Hon. Attorney General. I have considered the application before me. I have perused the certificate of order against the Government issued on 31st July, 1996 (Annexture ‘RLB002’) which awarded the applicant a sum of Kshs. 138,088. 10 together with interest thereon from 1st July, 1991 until payment in full. Several letters to the Attorney General seeking settlement went unanswered.
Mr. Eregi for the Attorney General did not oppose the application but merely sought time to arrange for payment of the sum due. In view of the fact that judgment was delivered in 1996, this matter has been left outstanding for over sixteen (16) years now. I am satisfied of the merit of this application and I do issue orders of mandamus as prayed. No order on costs.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 12th day of April, 2013.
M. ODERO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
No appearance for the Applicant
Mr. Eregi for the Respondent
Court Clerk Mutisya
[if gte mso 9]><xml>
800x600
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]