[2019] KEELRC 223 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 223 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant is the undisputed holder of a decree against the respondent for Kshs.7,171,986 plus interest at 12% per annum, and that the respondent's reliance on lack of parliamentary allocation does not absolve it from the obligation to satisfy the judgment. The respondent failed to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 223 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Julius O. Ogutu; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review 28 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed. Order of mandamus issued.
Judges
DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Remedies, Mandamus Orders, Enforcement of Judgments, Public Finance Constraints
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Judicial Review Remedies Mandamus Orders Enforcement of Judgments Public Finance Constraints

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius O. Ogutu

Applicant

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether an order of mandamus should issue to compel the Attorney General to satisfy a court decree and certificate of costs in favour of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether lack of budgetary allocation by Parliament is a valid defence for non-payment of a court decree by a government ministry.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has taken reasonable steps to comply with both monetary and non-monetary elements of the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant is the undisputed holder of a decree against the respondent for Kshs.7,171,986 plus interest at 12% per annum, and that the respondent's reliance on lack of parliamentary allocation does not absolve it from the obligation to satisfy the judgment. The respondent failed to demonstrate any proactive steps taken to secure funds for payment, and mere lamentation about lack of allocation is insufficient. The court emphasized that the applicant is entitled to the fruits of his judgment, and no appeal, review, or objection has been raised against the decree. Consequently, the court granted an order of mandamus compelling the Attorney General to honour the decree...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Order of mandamus issued.

Orders

  • An order of mandamus is issued compelling the Hon. Attorney General to honour the court decree and certificate of costs in Cause No. 37 of 2012 and pay the applicant Kshs.7,171,986 together with interest at 12% per annum from 1st October 2014 until payment in full.
  • The respondent shall pay the applicant's costs of this application.