[2017] KEHC 4884 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 4884 (KLR)

The court found that the ex-parte applicants had established the existence of a valid decree requiring the 1st Respondent to pay a decretal amount, that the 1st Respondent had been duly served with the decree and the application for mandamus, and that the 1st Respondent had failed to comply with the statutory duty...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 4884 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Commissioner of Lands; Respondent: Lands Registrar, Kilifi; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Wilson Gachanja; Respondent: Alfred Cherwon; Respondent: James Raymond Njenga; Applicant: Joyce Nyokabi (Administrator of David Kamau Mwangi); Applicant: Timothy Muchina Chege
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review 2 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Mandamus, Enforcement of Decree, Public Officer Duties
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Judicial Review Mandamus Enforcement of Decree Public Officer Duties

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Commissioner of Lands

Respondent

Lands Registrar, Kilifi

Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Wilson Gachanja

Respondent

Alfred Cherwon

Respondent

James Raymond Njenga

Respondent

Joyce Nyokabi (Administrator of David Kamau Mwangi)

Applicant

Timothy Muchina Chege

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the ex-parte applicants are entitled to an order of mandamus to compel the 1st Respondent to settle the decretal amount as per the decree in Malindi ELC No. 120 of 2011.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory conditions for the grant of an order of mandamus have been met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the ex-parte applicants had established the existence of a valid decree requiring the 1st Respondent to pay a decretal amount, that the 1st Respondent had been duly served with the decree and the application for mandamus, and that the 1st Respondent had failed to comply with the statutory duty to settle the decree. The court held that the conditions for the grant of an order of mandamus were satisfied, as the applicants had a clear legal right to enforcement of the decree and the 1st Respondent had a corresponding statutory duty to pay. The absence of any response or opposition from the respondents further supported the applicants' case. Accordingly, the court issued...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • An order of mandamus is issued directing the 1st Respondent to settle the decree issued on 17th November, 2015 by the Malindi Environment and Land Court in Civil Case No. 120 of 2011 (formerly Nairobi High Court Civil Case No. 1012 of 1998).
  • The ex-parte applicants are awarded the costs of these proceedings from the 1st Respondent.