[2022] KEHC 9766 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had obtained a valid judgment and decree against the government, had obtained a Certificate of Order against the Government as required by Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, and had served the respondents, who failed to pay the decretal sum or participate in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 9766 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Applicant: Nicholas Opiyo Sumba
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Migori
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review E007 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Order of mandamus granted.
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Mandamus Orders, Government Liability, Execution of Decrees, Public Duty 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
Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior
Respondent
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Nicholas Opiyo Sumba
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order of mandamus to compel the respondents to pay the decretal sum awarded in Migori CMCC No. 897 of 2018.
- 2 Whether the applicant has complied with the requirements under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act for issuance of a mandamus order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had obtained a valid judgment and decree against the government, had obtained a Certificate of Order against the Government as required by Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, and had served the respondents, who failed to pay the decretal sum or participate in the proceedings. Since attachment of government property is prohibited, the only available remedy was an order of mandamus to compel payment. The applicant satisfied all statutory requirements, and there was no alternative remedy. The court therefore granted the order of mandamus as prayed, compelling the respondents to pay the decretal sum with interest and awarded costs to the applicant.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Order of mandamus granted.
Orders
- An order of mandamus is issued compelling the respondents to pay the applicant Kshs. 212,487 together with interest at 14% per annum until payment in full.
- The respondents shall pay costs of the application assessed at Kshs. 20,000 to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministry of interior & another; Sumba (Exparte) (Judicial Review E007 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 9766 (KLR) (21 July 2022) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 9766 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Migori
Judicial Review E007 of 2022
RPV Wendoh, J
July 21, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY NICHOLAS SUMBA FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO APPLY FOR ORDERS OF MANDAMUS AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 22 & 29 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT, CAP 26 LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF EXECUTION OF A DECREE FOR KSHS. 212, 487/= AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 53 (1) CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES
Between
Republic
Applicant
and
Principal Secretary, Ministry of interior
1st Respondent
The Hon. Attorney General
2nd Respondent
and
Nicholas Opiyo Sumba
Exparte
Judgment
1. The application for determination is a Notice of Motion dated 17/3/2022 brought under the provisions of Order 53 Rule (1) - (6) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The ex - parte applicant through the firm of Kerario Marwa & Co. Advocates seeks the following orders: -a.That an order of Mandamus do issue from this court commanding the respondents to pay the applicant the decretal sum of Kshs. 212,487/= together with interest at 14% upto the date of payment, being the decreed sum in Migori CMCC No. 895 of 2018. b.Costs of the application be borne by the respondents.
2. The application is based on grounds appearing on the face thereof and statement of facts. The verifying affidavit in support of the application is the one dated 16/12/2021.
3. According to the ex-parte applicant, he obtained judgment in his favour vide Migori CMCC No. 897 of 2018 Nicholas Opiyo Sumba -vs- Inspector General of Police & The Honourable Attorney General for a total of Kshs. 212,487/= together with interest.
4. The ex-parte applicant stated that the respondents have refused to honour the court decree and pay the applicant; that the Government Proceedings Act as read together with the Civil Procedure Act prohibit attachment of Government properties in execution of court decree and the only remedy available to the applicant is to have the order of mandamus issued to compel the respondents to pay the applicant the decreed sum of Kshs. 212,487/= with interest upto the date of payment.
5. The application is not opposed. Despite service, the respondents chose not to participate in these proceedings. There is an affidavit of service dated 10/5/2022 sworn by George Ochieng Bala on record.
6. I have considered the application and the supporting documents annexed to the verifying affidavit as “NO1” and “NO3” being the Certificate of Order against the Government dated 10/8/2021 and affidavit of service respectively.
7. It is not in dispute that a judgement was delivered in favour of the ex-parte applicant and the court awarded a total of Kshs. 212,487/= being the decretal sum together with costs. The trial court further directed that the interest on the special damages should run from the date of filing suit at the rate of 14% till payment in full.
8. The ex-parte applicant is simply seeking an order of mandamus to compel the respondents to perform their public duty and satisfy the decree which they have failed to do to the detriment of the ex-parte applicant.
9. In the case of Republic vs. Attorney General & Another Ex-parte Ongata Works Limited [2016]eKLR__ Odunga J referred to the case of R (Regina) vs. Dudsheath, Ex Parte, Meredith [1950] 2 ALL E.R. 741, at 743, where Lord Goddard C. J. held as follows:It is important to remember that "mandamus" is neither a writ of course nor a writ of right, but that it will be granted if the duty is in the nature of a public duty, and specially affects the rights of an individual, provided there is no more appropriate remedy... "
10. Before an order of Mandamus can issue, the ex-parte applicant must comply with Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act. In Kisya Investments Ltd -vs-TheA. G.(2005) 1KLR 74, the Court explained why the strict and elaborate procedure under that section has to be followed, that is to allow the Government time to enable it to make arrangements to satisfy the decree. In this case, the ex-parte applicant has satisfied the above requirements and a Certificate of Order of costs dated 10/8/2021 was issued pursuant to Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
11. Having found that the ex-parte applicant is fully compliant, the court finds that he is deserving of an order of Mandamus. The application is allowed as prayed. Costs of this application is assessed at Kshs. 20,000/= in favour of the ex-parte applicant.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT MIGORI THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY,2022. R. WENDOHJUDGEJudgment delivered in the presence ofNo appearance for the Ex-Parte Applicant.No appearance for the Respondents.Nyauke Court Assistant.