[2017] KEHC 4401 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 4401 (KLR)

The court found that the County Secretary, Nairobi County Government, as a judgment debtor, has a legal duty to settle the decree issued in HCC 1595/2002. Since execution cannot issue against the government, judicial review by way of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel payment. The respondent had failed to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 4401 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: County Secretary, Nairobi County Government; Applicant: Samuel Mbugua Gachuhi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review 29 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Mandamus, Government Liability, Decree Enforcement
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Mandamus Government Liability Decree Enforcement

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

County Secretary, Nairobi County Government

Respondent

Samuel Mbugua Gachuhi

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether an order of mandamus should issue to compel the County Secretary, Nairobi County Government, to settle the decree in HCC 1595/2002.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has a legal duty to settle the judgment debt where execution cannot issue against the government.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the County Secretary, Nairobi County Government, as a judgment debtor, has a legal duty to settle the decree issued in HCC 1595/2002. Since execution cannot issue against the government, judicial review by way of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel payment. The respondent had failed to settle the decree despite repeated demands and undertakings, and had not opposed the application. The court held that failure to grant mandamus would render the judgment a mere paper judgment and undermine the applicant's right to the fruits of the judgment. Accordingly, the court granted the order of mandamus as sought, directing the respondent to settle the decree within 45 days.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Judicial review order of mandamus granted as sought in prayer No. 1 of the motion dated 28th February 2017.
  • Respondent to settle the decree in the sum of KES 1,200,703.67 as at 31st December 2016 with further interest within 45 days.