[2023] KEELRC 683 (KLR)
The court declined to grant leave to commence judicial review proceedings for mandamus because the ex-parte applicants failed to disclose the identities of the 162 employees allegedly owed salary arrears, did not provide a clear basis or computation for the sum of Kshs 38,400,000/-, and did not demonstrate that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 683 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: County Secretary, Nyamira County; Respondent: Chief Officer, Finance and Accounting Services, Nyamira County; Respondent: Chief Officer, Economic Planning, Resource Mobilisation and ICT, Nyamira County; Applicant: Andrew Ochieng Osumu; Applicant: Boaz Momanyi Nyauma; Applicant: Herbert Nyamwange; Applicant: Everlyne Mangaa
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application E001 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Commence Judicial Review (mandamus)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings declined. Costs to the respondents.
- Judges
- S Radido
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Mandamus, Enforcement of Consents, Salary Arrears, Certificate of Costs
- 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 Secretary, Nyamira County
Respondent
Chief Officer, Finance and Accounting Services, Nyamira County
Respondent
Chief Officer, Economic Planning, Resource Mobilisation and ICT, Nyamira County
Respondent
Andrew Ochieng Osumu
Applicant
Boaz Momanyi Nyauma
Applicant
Herbert Nyamwange
Applicant
Everlyne Mangaa
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Commence Judicial Review (mandamus)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex-parte applicants have established grounds for leave to commence judicial review proceedings for an order of mandamus against the respondents.
- 2 Whether the sum of Kshs 38,400,000/- claimed as salary arrears is supported by evidence or a valid court order.
- 3 Whether the application for mandamus can be combined with enforcement of taxed costs against the government.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to grant leave to commence judicial review proceedings for mandamus because the ex-parte applicants failed to disclose the identities of the 162 employees allegedly owed salary arrears, did not provide a clear basis or computation for the sum of Kshs 38,400,000/-, and did not demonstrate that the amount was decreed or ordered by the court. The Certificate of Satisfaction Order relied upon was not supported by the consent order previously adopted by the court and appeared invalid. Furthermore, judicial review is not the proper avenue for enforcing unproven monetary claims or combining claims for mandamus with enforcement of taxed costs, as there are specific statutory...
Court Disposition
Application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings declined. Costs to the respondents.
Orders
- Leave to commence judicial review proceedings is declined.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
45 paragraphs
Republic v County Secretary, Nyamira County & 2 others; Osumu & 3 others (Exparte Applicants) (Miscellaneous Civil Application E001 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 683 (KLR) (22 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 683 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Civil Application E001 of 2023
S Radido, J
March 22, 2023
Between
Republic
Applicant
and
County Secretary, Nyamira County
1st Respondent
Chief Officer, Finance and Accounting Services, Nyamira County
2nd Respondent
Chief Officer, Economic Planning, Resource Mobilisation and ICT, Nyamira County
3rd Respondent
and
Andrew Ochieng Osumu
Exparte Applicant
Boaz Momanyi Nyauma
Exparte Applicant
Herbert Nyamwange
Exparte Applicant
Everlyne Mangaa
Exparte Applicant
Ruling
1. The ex-parte applicants sued the Respondents sometime in 2019, alleging breach of contract.
2. The parties reached a consent which the Court adopted on January 18, 2022. The consent was in the following terms:(1)That the Petition herein together with all pending applications herein be deemed compromised in the following terms: -(2)That the Petitioners be admitted to the payroll with effect from June 2020. (3)That the Respondents to pay the Claimants (sic) the salary arrears as follows: -(a)April and May together with June salary for the Claimants in the payroll of March 2020. (b)Arrears pending prior to April 2020 be paid via supplementary budget to be presented to the County Assembly in the financial year of 2021 but in any event not later than October 2020. (c)Kennedy Atambo, Imbunge Makori, Godfrey Mokua Obondi and Andrew Omwenga do present their documents to the Respondents for verification and thereafter they be admitted to the payroll.(4)That there be no victimisation of the Claimants (sic) save for necessary disciplinary action after due process of the law by the relevant county organs.(5)That the Petition be marked as settled with costs to the Petitioners.
3. On January 11, 2023, the ex-parte applicants filed a Chamber Summons seeking orders:(1)The applicants be granted leave to apply for an order of mandamus directed to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents to pay to the applicants and 162 employees in the Petition the sum of Kshs 38,400,000/- being arrears of 10 months in Kisumu ELRC Petition No 23 of 2019 with Kshs 1,762,050/- being certified costs thereon together with interest thereon at 12% per annum from November 2, 2022 until payment in full.(2)The costs of this application be costs in the cause.
4. The acting County Secretary filed a replying affidavit in opposition to the Summons on February 15, 2023, and the Court took arguments on February 16, 2023.
5. The reasons raised by the ex-parte applicants in support of the Summons were that the Respondents had failed or refused to comply with the terms of the consent and had also failed to pay costs after a Certificate of Costs had been issued.
6. The Respondents resisted the Summons and contended that the ex-parte applicants had been reinstated to the payroll and paid all salary arrears (copies of P9 tax returns for 2020 were exhibited), the arrears of Kshs 38,400,000/- had not been computed nor supported by a decree, evidence or documentation, and a Certificate of Order against the County government had not been issued.
7. The Respondents asserted that the Summons was irregular.
8. The Court has considered the Summons, Statement of Facts, affidavits and submissions, and come to the view that this is not a suitable case to grant leave to commence judicial review for order of mandamus because of the following reasons.
9. One, the ex-parte applicants have not disclosed the identities of the 162 persons allegedly owed the salary arrears. In Kisumu Petition No 23 of 2019, Andrew Ochieng Osumo & 3 Ors v County Government of Nyamira & 6 Ors, it was pleaded that orders sought would apply to some 634 employees whose names had been removed from the payroll unlawfully.
10. The names and or particulars of the 634 employees were not disclosed in the Petition.
11. In the instant Summons, the ex-parte applicants have purportedly acted on behalf of 162 employees. Again, the names and or particulars of the 162 employees have not been revealed.
12. Two, the ex-parte applicants have not disclosed the source or foundation of the sum of Kshs 38,400,000/- or how it was arrived at. It is not clear whether the amount was decreed or ordered by the Court.
13. Although there is a Certificate of Satisfaction Order given by the Deputy Registrar on February 3, 2023, the order is not supported by the consent dated June 19, 2020, and adopted by the Court on January 18, 2022.
14. The Certificate, on the face of it appears invalid.
15. Three, for the Court to adopt or award the sum of Kshs 38,400,000/-, it must be proved strictly. Judicial review proceedings are not an apt avenue for such a course of action when there is no previous order of the Court finding the amount due or owing.
16. Four, it was irregular for the ex-parte applicants to combine an application for mandamus with one seeking enforcement of payment for taxed costs since there are clear legal provisions to secure payment of costs against the government.
Orders 17. Leave to commence judicial review proceedings is declined. Costs to the Respondents.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED IN KISUMU ON THIS 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2023. RADIDO STEPHEN, MCIARBJUDGEAppearancesFor ex-parte applicants Ochoki & Co. AdvocatesFor Respondents Nyachiro Nyagaka & Co. AdvocatesCourt Assistant Chrispo Aura