Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National Government & another Ex Parte Lilian Nini Kangara [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
P. Nyamwea
Judgment Date
October 06, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3

Case Brief: Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National Government & another Ex Parte Lilian Nini Kangara [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Republic vs. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & The Attorney General
- Case Number: Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application No. 274 of 2018
- Court: High Court of Kenya
- Date Delivered: 6th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): P. Nyamwea
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving two primary legal issues:
1. Whether the 1st Respondent (the Principal Secretary) has a legal duty to satisfy the decree and orders issued in favor of the ex parte Applicant (Lilian Nini Kangara).
2. If such a duty exists, whether the ex parte Applicant is entitled to the relief sought through the application for mandamus.

3. Facts of the Case:
The ex parte Applicant, Lilian Nini Kangara, was previously awarded Kshs 6,077,834.10 in damages in Milimani Chief Magistrates Civil Case No. 7250 of 2014, against Joseph Gathonga and the Attorney General. The liability was apportioned equally between the two defendants. Following the judgment on 13th February 2018, the Applicant sought payment of Kshs 3,241,135.45, representing 50% of the awarded damages and costs, from the 1st Respondent. Despite multiple reminders, the 1st Respondent failed to settle the amount, leading the ex parte Applicant to file judicial review proceedings on 18th July 2018.

4. Procedural History:
The ex parte Applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking orders of mandamus against the 1st Respondent for non-payment of the awarded sum. The Respondents did not file any response despite being served. The court directed the matter to be resolved through submissions. The ex parte Applicant's counsel argued that the Respondents, particularly the 1st Respondent, had a statutory obligation to pay the awarded sum under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act. However, the court noted the absence of a required Certificate of Order against the Government, leading to the striking out of the application.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, which outlines the procedure for enforcing court orders against the government. Specifically, it details the need for a certificate of the order to be issued and served on the Attorney General before any payment can be made.
- Case Law: The court referenced previous cases, including *Shah vs. Attorney General (No. 3) Kampala [1970] EA 543* and *Republic vs. Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security Ex Parte Fredrick Manoah Egunza [2012] eKLR*, which established that an order of mandamus can compel government officials to fulfill their statutory duties when they fail to do so.
- Application: The court found that the ex parte Applicant had not complied with the procedural requirements of the Government Proceedings Act, as she did not provide evidence of the issuance and service of the Certificate of Order against the Government. Consequently, the court ruled that the application was premature and struck it out, allowing the Applicant the opportunity to refile once the proper procedures were followed.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled against the ex parte Applicant due to her failure to comply with the procedural requirements necessary for enforcing a judgment against the government. The ruling highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory protocols in such cases, suggesting that the ex parte Applicant could pursue her claims again after fulfilling these requirements.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case, as the ruling was unanimous in its findings regarding the procedural shortcomings of the ex parte Applicant's application.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya dismissed Lilian Nini Kangara's application for mandamus against the Principal Secretary and the Attorney General due to her failure to follow the requisite procedures outlined in the Government Proceedings Act. The decision underscores the necessity for litigants to adhere to statutory requirements when seeking enforcement of judgments against government entities, impacting future claims made under similar circumstances.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Republic-v-Principal-Secretary-Ministry-of-Interior-and-Co-ordination-of-National-Government--another-Ex-Parte-Lilian-Nini-Kangara-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2458_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries