[2007] KEHC 170 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 170 (KLR)

The court found that the Controller and Auditor General does not have a statutory or public duty to lift the ban imposed on the Applicants, as the ban was imposed by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), a committee of Parliament, and not by the Respondent. The Respondent's statutory duties are limited to auditing and reporting, and the Respondent is not subject to the direction or control of the PAC or any other authority in the exercise of those functions. The Applicants failed to identify any specific statutory provision breached by the Respondent or any duty that the Respondent failed to perform. Furthermore, the Applicants did not join the proper parties, namely the National Assembly,...

Citation
[2007] KEHC 170 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Computer Applications Limited and System Integration Limited (Symphony); Respondent: Controller and Auditor General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 October 2007
Case Number
? 606 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
JW Nyamu, RPV Wendoh
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Mandamus, Public Duty, Parliamentary Procedure, Separation of Powers
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Mandamus Public Duty Parliamentary Procedure Separation of Powers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Computer Applications Limited and System Integration Limited (Symphony)

Applicant

Controller and Auditor General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Controller and Auditor General has a statutory or public duty to verify and confirm the completion of the contract between the Applicants and the Government as requested by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
  2. 2 Whether an order of mandamus can issue to compel the Controller and Auditor General to perform the acts sought by the Applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the proper parties were before the court for the orders sought to be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Controller and Auditor General does not have a statutory or public duty to lift the ban imposed on the Applicants, as the ban was imposed by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), a committee of Parliament, and not by the Respondent. The Respondent's statutory duties are limited to auditing and reporting, and the Respondent is not subject to the direction or control of the PAC or any other authority in the exercise of those functions. The Applicants failed to identify any specific statutory provision breached by the Respondent or any duty that the Respondent failed to perform. Furthermore, the Applicants did not join the proper parties, namely the National Assembly,...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 3rd November 2006 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the Respondent.