[2019] KEELRC 1971 (KLR)
The court found that the respondents had fully satisfied the decree by paying the decretal sum of Kshs. 3,806,419, less Kshs. 1,080,000 remitted as tax to KRA, to the applicant's advocates. The applicant did not file any further affidavit to contradict the respondents' evidence or to demonstrate that the decree...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 1971 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: County Executive Committee, Finance, Kakamega County Government; Respondent: Chief Finance Officer, Kakamega County Government; Respondent: The Governor, Kakamega County Government
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 7 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Mandamus Orders, Decree Enforcement, Public Officer 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
Republic
Applicant
County Executive Committee, Finance, Kakamega County Government
Respondent
Chief Finance Officer, Kakamega County Government
Respondent
The Governor, Kakamega County Government
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an order of mandamus should issue to compel the respondents to settle the decree in Kisumu ELRC No. 26 of 2015.
- 2 Whether the respondents have already satisfied the decree and costs in full.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents had fully satisfied the decree by paying the decretal sum of Kshs. 3,806,419, less Kshs. 1,080,000 remitted as tax to KRA, to the applicant's advocates. The applicant did not file any further affidavit to contradict the respondents' evidence or to demonstrate that the decree remained unsatisfied. The court held that since the respondents had discharged their obligations, there was no basis for issuing an order of mandamus. Any dispute regarding the actual amount received by the applicant from their advocates was not a matter for the respondents but should be pursued against the advocates. Accordingly, the application for mandamus was dismissed for lack...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for an order of mandamus is dismissed.
- No orders are issued against the respondents as they have discharged their obligations.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT KISUMU
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 7 OF 2018
(Before Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma)
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT ACT, NO. 17 OF 2012
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC.......................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, FINANCE
KAKAMEGA COUNTY GOVENRMENT.......................1ST RESPONDENT
CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER, KAKAMEGA
COUNTY GOVERNMENT...............................................2ND RESPONDENT
THE GOVERNOR, KAKAMEGA COUNTY
GOVERNMENT................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The applicant sought an executive order of mandamus in the following terms in the application dated 6th April 2018:-
“That an order of MANDAMUS be issued compelling the respondents to settle the decree in KISUMU ELRC NO. 26 OF 2015. Jamin Shitsukane Muliru vs Kakamega County Government in full”.
The applicant further sought costs of the suit.
2. The application was opposed by a replying Affidavit of Moses L. Sande, The County Attorney in which he deposes that he knows of his own knowledge that the aforesaid Decree plus costs were satisfied in full through M/S Ong’anda and Associates Advocates. That Kshs. 3,806,419 was wired to the Advocate’s account on 2nd July 2017 less tax of Kshs 1,080,000 which was remitted to KRA as can be seen on the payment voucher marked as “MLS’1’ and extract of payment from Central Bank of Kenya marked as “MLS ‘1’ (b) respectively.
3. That there is no balance outstanding from the court’s Decree as claimed by the Applicant.
4. The applicant did not file a further affidavit to contradict the aforesaid averments by the respondent.
5. The court is satisfied that the decree was satisfied by payment of the decretal sum of Kshs. 3,806,419 less taxation paid to KRA in the sum of Kshs. 1,080,000 which fact has not been controverted by the applicant. M/S Ong’anda Advocate have not been enjoined in these proceedings for any lawful orders to issue against them.
6. If the applicant has a complaint on the actual amount paid by the advocates to the applicants, the matter ought to be taken up with the said advocates.
7. The orders sought against the respondents lack merit since they have discharged their obligations to the applicant.
8. The application is dismissed.
Judgment Dated, Signed and delivered this 21st day of March, 2019
Mathews N. Nduma
Judge
Appearances
Mr. Yogo for exparte applicant
Mr. Muleche for respondents
Chrispo – Court Clerk