[2016] KEHC 358 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 358 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant holds a valid and unsatisfied decree from the Employment and Labour Relations Court, and the respondents have neither paid the decretal sum nor provided any evidence of payment or legal justification for non-payment. The absence of a replying affidavit or proof of settlement by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 358 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Principal Secretary Ministry of Defence; Respondent: Attorney General; Applicant: Lt. Col (Rtd) Richard Nchapi Leiyagu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review 301 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Judicial Review Mandamus, Enforcement of Court Decrees, Government Liability, Public Officer Remedies
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Employment and Labour Judicial Review Mandamus Enforcement of Court Decrees Government Liability Public Officer Remedies

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Principal Secretary Ministry of Defence

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Lt. Col (Rtd) Richard Nchapi Leiyagu

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order of mandamus to compel the respondents to settle the decree issued by the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Petition No. 6 of 2013.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have failed to satisfy the court decree despite requests and absence of evidence of payment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant holds a valid and unsatisfied decree from the Employment and Labour Relations Court, and the respondents have neither paid the decretal sum nor provided any evidence of payment or legal justification for non-payment. The absence of a replying affidavit or proof of settlement by the respondents, despite their acknowledgment of the debt and consent to the hearing date, justified the issuance of an order of mandamus. The court therefore granted the order compelling the respondents to settle the decree within 90 days, failing which the applicant may pursue contempt proceedings.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • An order of mandamus is issued compelling the respondents to settle the decree in Petition No. 6 of 2013, Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nairobi.
  • The sums due are to be settled within 90 days from the date of judgment.