[2020] KEHC 5807 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 5807 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had established her entitlement to the sums claimed, as evidenced by the certificate of order against the Government and the certificate of taxed costs, both of which had been duly served on the respondents. The respondents, despite being represented by counsel and having been...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 5807 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Principal Secretary of the President, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government; Respondent: Attorney General; Applicant: Susan Nyathira
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review 15 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Mandamus, Government Liability, Enforcement of Judgments, Contempt of Court
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Mandamus Government Liability Enforcement of Judgments Contempt of Court

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Principal Secretary of the President, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Susan Nyathira

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether an order of mandamus should issue to compel the 1st respondent to pay the decretal sum, interest, and costs to the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st respondent should be held in contempt of court for failure to comply with court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established her entitlement to the sums claimed, as evidenced by the certificate of order against the Government and the certificate of taxed costs, both of which had been duly served on the respondents. The respondents, despite being represented by counsel and having been served with all relevant documents, failed to file any response or contest the application. The court held that the requirements for the grant of an order of mandamus had been satisfied: there was a clear legal right, a public duty owed by the respondents, and no other adequate remedy. The court further held that continued non-compliance with the court's orders would justify...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • An order of mandamus is issued compelling the 1st respondent to pay the applicant KES 873,879.
  • Payment to be made within 45 days from the date of the ruling.