[2020] KEELRC 1220 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent, having been a party to the judgment in Cause No. 1503 of 2013 and the subsequent computation order adopted by the court, was under a legal obligation to comply with those orders. The respondent's failure to issue appointment letters, certificates of service, and pay the specified...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELRC 1220 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission; Applicant: Alividza Akatsa Georgianna; Applicant: Daniel Kingori Mathenge; Applicant: Faith Wanjiku Njeri; Applicant: Samuel Mburu Machua
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Case 003 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Mandamus
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Mandamus Orders, Employment Entitlements, Court Order Enforcement
- 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
Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission
Respondent
Alividza Akatsa Georgianna
Applicant
Daniel Kingori Mathenge
Applicant
Faith Wanjiku Njeri
Applicant
Samuel Mburu Machua
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Mandamus
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent is legally obligated to comply with the court's judgment and computation orders in Cause No. 1503 of 2013.
- 2 Whether an order of mandamus should issue to compel the respondent to perform the duties specified in the prior court orders.
- 3 Whether the ex parte applicants are entitled to the specific reliefs sought, including appointment letters, certificates of service, and monetary compensation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent, having been a party to the judgment in Cause No. 1503 of 2013 and the subsequent computation order adopted by the court, was under a legal obligation to comply with those orders. The respondent's failure to issue appointment letters, certificates of service, and pay the specified monetary entitlements constituted a breach of its statutory and judicially imposed duties. The court held that the requirements for the issuance of an order of mandamus were satisfied, as the applicants had established a clear legal right and the respondent had failed to perform its corresponding duty. The court therefore issued an order of mandamus compelling the respondent...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- An order of mandamus is issued compelling the respondent to comply with the decision of the Honourable Court in Cause No. 1503 of 2013 within 14 days.
- Costs of the motion are to be borne by the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MISC. E003 OF 2020
(FORMERLY MISC. NO. 67 OF 2020)
REPUBLIC.................................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION...RESPONDENT
1. ALIVIDZA AKATSA GEORGIANNA
2. DANIEL KINGORI MATHENGE
3. FAITH WANJIKU NJERI
4. SAMUEL MBURU MACHUA.......................................EX PARTE APPLICANTS
RULING
1. The Notice of Motion application by the Ex ParteApplicants dated 23rd July 2020 seeks the following orders:-
1. THAT an Order of Mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the Respondent:
a. To issue the 1st Ex-Parte Applicant with a letter of appointment as an Administrative Officer and specifying her terms and conditions of service.
b. To issue each of the 2nd and 3rd Ex-Parte Applicants with a letter of appointment as Communication Officer/Website Administrator and specifying their terms and conditions of service.
c. To issue the 4th Ex-Parte Applicant, who has since left the employment of the Respondent, with a Certificate of Service recognizing his employment in a permanent capacity for the period he worked for the Respondent.
d. To pay each of the Ex-Parte Applicants a month’s salary in lieu of the leave days not taken for each completed year of service, with interest at Court rates from the date of filing of Cause No. 1503 of 2013 till payment in full, computed in accordance with the leave allowance computation dated 20th November 2018 and adopted by the Court on 3rd December 2018, which amounts now stand at Kshs. 415,659/- for each of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Ex-Parte Applicants, and Kshs. 298,327/- for the 4th Ex-Parte Applicant.
e. To pay the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Ex-Parte Applicants salaries and allowances commensurate with their positions of Administrative Officer and Communication Officer/Website Administrator, i.e. Kshs. 148,109/- per month each, inclusive of house allowance and transport allowance with effect from the date of the judgment, i.e. 31st July 2018.
2. THAT costs of this Application be borne by the Respondent.
The motion as supported by the affidavit of Faith Wanjiku Njeri and the grounds on the face of the motion. The motion was urged by Mr. Kangatta for the Ex ParteApplicants while Ms. Gathoni opposed the motion on behalf of the Respondent.
2. Despite service in July 2020, the Respondent did not file any response to the motion though counsel for the Respondents was allowed to argue the motion despite the omission by the Respondent to respond to the motion. The Ex ParteApplicants have sought mandamusin relation to the decision of the Court given in August 2018. The Judgment required computation to be undertaken by the Claimants in the case (Ex ParteApplicants herein) and the Respondent. The computation was done in November 2018 and adopted as an order of the Court. It is this that the Ex ParteApplicants seek to compel the Respondent to comply with.
3. The order of mandamus is a court order issued by a judge at the request of a party seeking to compel someone to execute a duty that they are legally obliged to undertake. The Respondent IEBC was obliged by the Court order to do certain things which it has failed to do thus making the issuance of the order of mandamusnecessary. In my considered view, having been party to the decision and having been made aware of the need to comply as was done here, the order that commends itself for this Court to make is as follows:-
a. an order of Mandamusbe and is hereby issued compelling the Respondent to comply with the decision of the Honourable Court in Cause No. 1503 of 2013 within the next 14 days.
b. Costs of this motion be borne by the Respondent.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 15th day of December 2020
Nzioki wa Makau
JUDGE