James Samuel Mburu v Attorney General & Principal Secretary Ministry of Finance And National Treasury [2017] KEHC 6129 (KLR) | Mandamus Against Government | Esheria

James Samuel Mburu v Attorney General & Principal Secretary Ministry of Finance And National Treasury [2017] KEHC 6129 (KLR)

Full Case Text

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  362 OF 2016

IN THE MATER OF AN APPLICATION BY JAMES SAMUEL MBURU FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE   AND NATIONAL TREASURY

AND

IN THE MATTER OF GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT, CAP 40, LAWS OF KENYA

BETWEEN

JAMES SAMUEL MBURU………………………………….…APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL..…………………………..1ST RESPONDENT

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF

FINANCE AND NATIONAL TREASURY………………2ND RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1. On 16th November 2016 this court granted to the exparte applicant leave to institute Judicial Review proceedings seeking for an order of mandamus to compel the settlement of the decree in Nairobi CMCC No. 73420/2003 in favour of the applicant James Samuel Mburu in the sum of shs 1,714,361 which remains due and owing to him vide judgment delivered on 21st April 2015.

2. Leave was in respect of the amended chamber summons amended on 11th October 2016 as per leave of court granted on 16th November 2016.

3. The  substantive motion  was  dutifully  filed  on  24th November  2016   within the  21st days  stipulated in Order  53  Rule  1 (4)  of the Civil  Procedure Rules.

4. The applicant’s notice of motion seeks for the following Judicial Review order and other orders:

a) Mandamus to issue jointly and severally directed to the  respondent’s the Attorney General and the Principal  Secretary of the Ministry of Finance and National  Treasury, compelling  them jointly  and  severally to pay  kshs 1,714,361  being the decretal  sum  owed to him in Nairobi  CM CC 13420/2003  together with interest  thereon at  12%  per annum from 1st  January  2001  to 1st  January  2007  and  taxed  costs  of the suit   pursuant   to the certificate of order  issued  on 18th December  2015.

b) That in the event of failure to pay the sum  of shs 1,714,361  the persons occupying the position of the  Attorney General  and the Principal Secretary  of Ministry of Finance and  National Treasury, be committed to jail  in contempt  of the orders  issued herein;

c) That costs of the application be paid by the respondents.

d) Such further or other relief as the Honourable court may deem fit and just to grant.

5. The application which is expressly brought  under the provisions of  Order  53  Rules  3  and  4  of the Civil Procedure  Rules  and  other enabling laws  is predicated on the sole  ground  that since  21st  April  2015  when judgment  was  entered  for the applicant  against  the  respondent for the  sum of  shs  1,714,362 and that   despite several reminders, the Attorney General and the Principal  Secretary  of the Ministry  of Finance  have jointly   and  severally  in breach of  and despite  being  duly  serves with the said orders  blatantly  and  completely  failed to  settle  the decretal  sum herein.

6. The said  application is also  based on the statutory  statement  of James Samuel Mburu filed on 13th October 2016, the affidavits sworn on 11th October  2016  and  8th November  2016  and such other to be adduced at the hearing.

7. According to the applicant, his case  is that he is the  decree  holder in CM CC13420/2003 having successfully sued the Attorney General for his dues following his unlawful  termination  of his  employment on  17th  June  1997 by his then employer  the Ministry of Finance as the Head of Ken Ren Liquidation  unit  as an  arbitrator.

8. That the ministry admitted  vide its  letter dated  6th December  2000 that  it owed him shs  918,225 and  undertook to pay him  by 11th  December  2000 but defaulted necessitating institution of suit before the Magistrate’s  court hence  Nairobi  CM CC 13420/2003  against the Ministry of Finance as  represented by the Attorney General.

9. That judgment was delivered on 21st April 2015 by the Chief Magistrate, Milimani Commercial Court Honourable R.A. Oganyo(Mrs).  That vide decree issued  on 17th August   2015 the respondent was ordered to settle shs 1,714,361 and Certificate of Order against the Government issued.

10. That todate, no appeal has been filed against that judgment/decree yet the respondents have declined or refused to settle the decree which is prejudicial to the applicant who has send several reminders to the Attorney General.

11. That the Attorney General  is under a public  duty to pay the decretal  sum due  as Order  29  Rule   2   of the Civil Procedure Rules  prohibits the execution against the  Government  hence these  proceedings  for an order  or mandamus  to compel payment.

12. On 21st  December  2016  the respondents  filed grounds  of opposition signed  by Mr  Kepha  Onyiso  Senior  Principal  State  Counsel  opposing  the application for  mandamus   orders  and contending  that:

a. The Attorney General has no statutory mandate/responsibility to settle decretal sums on behalf  of the  Government  officers;

b. That the annexture JSM1 shows  that the  Attorney General   was sued  on behalf of the  Ministry of Finance  and Planning   as it  then  was,  and therefore  cannot be liable for  settling  judgments  decreed  against the  said office.

c. That the Attorney General is not the accounting officer   for the National Treasury.

d. That prayer 2 of the motion is not available as it seeks to expand the jurisdiction of this court by craft.

e. That prayer 2 presupposes that the outcome of the applicant is predetermined and if this court were  to grant prayer, it would  be violating  the  respondent’s rights  under Article  50 of the Constitution and would be taking away the  respondent’s  right to  appeal  as  expressly conferred under  Section  8(5)  of the Law  Reform Act.

f. That the application is defective and should be dismissed forthwith with costs to the respondents.

13. The parties’  advocates  argued the motion  orally before me  in JR  489/2016  between  the same  parties  and  agreed  that  as the cause of action  arose from  the same   facts, the judgment  in JR  489/2016 be adopted  as judgment in this case.  However, upon considering  JR  489/2016, I discovered that the  main motion in the said  matter  was  filed out  of the  21 days  period  stipulated  by Order  53  of the Civil Procedure  Rules, unlike  in this matter  where the motion was dutifully filed within the stipulated  statutory period. I therefore struck out JR 489/2016 for being  incompetently  filed and  it would be  prejudicial  to apply that order of  striking   out to a  cause that  is competently  before the court  hence this separate  judgment  determining  the merits of this matter.

14. The parties’ advocates reiterated what is contained in their respective  pleadings  with Miss  Ndungu urging the  court to grant   the orders sought  to alleviate  her client’s suffering as he has been waiting for his dues for a long time and that the objection to the application is intended  to delay and  deny her client justice  which is a constitutional right.

15. Miss Ndungu further submitted that as the law  does not  permit  execution against  the Government, only  judicial review   orders  of mandamus  can issue to accord  her client  an opportunity  to realize  his fruits of a lawful  judgment.

16. On the claim  by the respondent’s counsel that  the Attorney General  not  being  an accounting officer for  the National Treasury  and  merely being  the principal legal  advisor  to Government  hence no  mandamus  can issue  against him, the applicant’s  counsel  submitted  that the judgment  and  decree was  issued  against the  Attorney General hence he  cannot escape  the duty to  settle  a lawful decree of the court as no appeal  was filed  challenging  the  judgment. Reliance was placed on KNEC vs Republic  Exparte  Goeffrey  Gathenji Njoroge  & 9 Others [1977] e KLR  and Republic vs  Attorney General & Another  Exparte James Alfred  Koroso [2013] e KLR  on the nature  of mandamus  and  when this  Judicial Review  remedy will issue, where  there is  no specific  remedy,  citing  with approval  Shah V Attorney General  No. 3   Kampala  HC Miscellaneous  No. 31/69 [1970] EA 543.

17. It  was  submitted that unless  mandamus  issues, the applicant  decree holder will forever be left baby sitting his barren   decree, which  state of affairs  cannot  be allowed  to prevent  under our  constitutional  dispensation  in light of  the provisions   of Article  48  of the Constitution which enjoins  the state to  ensure  access  to  justice  for all persons.

18. Further, those parties should not put road blocks in the path of a decree holder from realizing the fruits of their judgments. The applicant prayed for the orders sought.

19. In opposition, Miss  Maina  for  the  respondents  submitted, reiterating  her grounds  of opposition  as  reproduced  in this case  maintaining that the Attorney General  has no statutory  mandate or responsibility  to settle  the decretal  sums  on behalf  of  other government  offices;  that the  Attorney  General   was sued  only on behalf   of the Ministry  of Finance  and  Planning  as per  the judgment  of the court below; that he is  not the  accounting  officer  of the  National Treasury; that  this court’s  jurisdiction  is limited  by the Law Reform Act and not expansive  by judicial  craft   to grant  prayer  No. 2  of the notice  of motion which  presupposes  that the  outcome  of the application is prejudged  which  is offensive  to the right   to a fair  hearing  stipulated  in Article  50 of  the Constitution  as it  would also  take away  the  respondent’s  right of appeal  under Section 8(5) of the Law  Reform Act Cap  26  Laws  of Kenya.  The respondent’s counsel urged the court to dismiss these judicial review proceedings with costs to the respondents.

DETERMINATION

20. I have carefully  considered  the applicant’s  notice of motion, the grounds  as supported by  the statutory  statement  verifying affidavit, submissions  by his counsel  and the  decisions  relied  on. I have also considered the respondent’s grounds of opposition, the submissions and case law cited.

21. The issue  for determination is whether  the  order of mandamus  is available  to the applicant  against the  respondents jointly  and severally  to settle  decree in  Nairobi CM CC 1320 of  2003.

22. As correctly  submitted by the  applicant’s  counsel,  Miss Ndungu,  Mandamus  is available  to compel  performance  of a public  duty and is  the most extensive  of remedial  nature. In judicial review  it is  issued by  the court, commanding  an inferior  tribunal, body or authority  exercising  judicial or quasi  judicial jurisdiction, requiring him or them to do some  particular  thing therein specified which appertains to  his or their  office and  is in the nature of  a  public duty.

23. The purpose of mandamus as a Judicial Review  remedy is to remedy the defects of justice and accordingly,  it will issue to the end that justice may be done, in all  cases where there is a specific legal  right and no specific  legal remedy for enforcing  that right; and  it may  issue  in cases  where albeit   there is an alternative legal remedy, yet that mode of redress is less convenient, beneficial and effectual ( see Halsbury’s  Laws of England  4th Edition  Vol 1 page 111 from  paragraph 89 (cited  with approval  in Kenya National Examinations Council v Republic  Exparte  Geoffrey  Gathenji  Njoroge  & 9 Others  (supra).

24. As  was correctly submitted on behalf of the  applicant by his  counsel,  there  is no  other  way of realizing  the fruits of his  judgment  since he is barred by  Section 21(4) of the Government  proceedings from executing  against the  Government.

25. It is also  not in dispute that the applicant  has a valid  Judgment, Decree and Certificate of Order against  the Government  in Nairobi CMCC 13420  of 2003  which decree  has never  been satisfied  following its issue  on  21st April  2015.  That  being the  case, the only  available  remedy  is by way of  Judicial Review  order of mandamus   to compel  settlement   of that decree, and that  cannot be  equated  with execution of a decree  or an  attachment  process.  It is not  sought to  make  any individual  occupying a Government  office  personally  or individually  liable  for any order for  any payment  but merely  to oblige  a government  officer in his official  capacity to pay or settle  the decree in accordance  with  a duty  placed upon them by the law and as occupants of those offices.

26. However, mandamus  can only issue  against an  Accounting Officer of a particular Government entity or institution, compelling him to do  a duty   imposed  on him by   the law and  where he  has declined  to enforce  or perform   that public  duty, the court may  find him  in contempt  of court  order( See Republic Vs  Attorney General  & Other Exparte  James  Koroso (supra).

27. Nonetheless, as correctly submitted by the respondent’s  counsel, the court in considering  proceedings for mandamus  cannot commit the  Accounting Officer  for contempt, without  according him  or her an  opportunity to comply  with the order  of mandamus.

28. Contempt of court proceedings  only follow  after the respondent (public  officer)  has been compelled  to perform  that public   duty by  order of the court  and the respondent  declines or neglects  to do so.

29. In this case, however, another  angle to these proceedings has  been brought out  by the respondent’s  counsel, which is  that the Attorney General  who is not  an Accounting  Officer  for the National Treasury , but  that he  was used  in his representative  capacity on behalf  of the Government  Ministry of Finance   and Planning  as it then   was and  now  the Ministry of Finance  and  the National Treasury, he cannot  even  in his   official capacity  be  compelled   to settle  decree, jointly  and or severally  with  the  National Treasury.

30. On the part  of the  applicant,  it is submitted that the  Attorney General   was the primary party   to the suit giving   rise to the decree  and that   decree  was  issued  against him  hence it is  upon  his office  to ensure  payment  is made to settle  decree.

31. I agree  with the respondent’s  counsel’s  submissions  on this issue  entirely  for reasons  that unless  the Attorney General  is sued for  acts or  omissions  committed or omitted to be done by  his office  as established under Article  156  of the Constitution  and  as operationalised  by the Office  of the Attorney  General Act, the Attorney General  being the  Principal  Legal advisor  to the Government  remains just that   in all  representative  legal  proceedings  where other  Government  or State Department  are sued  but in the  name of the Attorney General.

32. It therefore follows that  albeit the Attorney General is the primary party to the suit  and  the only party as such, he  cannot carry  the legal duty  of settling  the decree  or enforce  the order  issued against the specific Government Ministry or State Government  on whose behalf  the Attorney General  was sued.

33. And even assuming that the office of the Attorney General is sued in its own capacity, the Attorney General  not being the Accounting Officer of the Office of the Attorney General cannot be compelled to settle  decree or to enforce an order of the court. It is the Solicitor General, who is the Accounting Officer of the Office of the Attorney General and Department of Justice.

34. In this case, however, as I have stated the Attorney General was sued in representative capacity on behalf of the then Ministry of Finance and Planning. After August  27th 2010, the Ministry was restructured and is now the Ministry of Finance and National Treasury as contemplated  in Article 225  of the Constitution.

35. That being the case, although  the Attorney General is the primary party to  the suit  giving  rise to the  decree  which remains unsettled, the  person  who is  liable to  be compelled  to settle  that  decree is as disclosed in the pleadings  and judgment  of the  trial court, and that person is  the Principal Secretary, State Department  of Finance and the National  Treasury, who is also the  Accounting  Officer  of the that Ministry/ State Department. This is so because the cause of  action arose  from breach of agreements  or contracts entered  into between the then Ministry of  Finance  and the  exparte applicant  herein, and  moreso, the judgment  of  21st April  2015  is clear that the Ministry  admitted  owing  the claimed sum  of money.  The Attorney General’s duty  and  mandate  was  to provide  legal advise  on how to deal  with some  of the contractual  issues and not to assume liability on behalf of the Ministry of Finance.

36. Furthermore, page 5  of the said  judgment is clear  that the Ministry having admitted the claim, they should pay the plaintiff  the sums  of money  owed  and  as admitted, with  interest  at court rates  from 1st July  1977 and  1st December 2000 respectively.  The sums   of money concerned a contract for shs 918,225 and shs 240,000 respectively.

37. Accordingly, I find  without hesitation that it is  the Principal Secretary, Ministry  of Finance and National Treasury  who is  liable  to settle  decree in Nairobi  CMCC 13420/2003  and not  the Attorney General’s  office.

38. As such, I proceed and issue Judicial Review order of mandamus directed at the  Principal Secretary, Ministry  of Finance  and the  National Treasury, compelling  him to solely pay  to the applicant  James  Samuel Mburu  the sum  of shs  1,714,361  One  million, seven  hundred  and  fourteen thousand, three  hundred and  sixty  one only  being decretal sum owed to him in Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Court Civil Suit No.13420/2003  inclusive  of interest  at court rates  of 12%  per annum as  was calculated  by the Chief Magistrate’s Court  in the decree  issued  on  17th August  2015,  and  any other  further  interest that  may have  accrued  therefrom  in accordance  with the judgment of the court dated  21st April  2015  until  payment in full.

39. On prayer  No. 2, I decline  to grant  the same  as it is premature.  I order  that the sums  due and  owing shall  be settled  within  (150)  one hundred   and  fifty  days  from the date  hereof  and in default, the exparte applicant  shall be at liberty  to take out  contempt  of court proceedings  as appropriate  to enforce  compliance  with this court order.

40. The Attorney General is accordingly discharged from any liability and from the judicial review proceedings as a judgment debtor in view of the aforestated. He however remains the legal counsel to the 1st respondent as that is a constitutional mandate of the Office of the Attorney General.

41. I order  that each party  shall bear their  own costs  of these Judicial  Review proceedings for reasons  that although the  money  has been owing for a long time  thereby attracting  huge interest, the matter    was pending  in the Chief Magistrate’s Court  for 12  years  from 2003   until  21st April  2015  when   judgment   was delivered.

42. Accordingly, it cannot be  said that it  has taken  long to settle  decree and therefore the court must  not  encourage  escalation of costs between  parties  which will  be a burden  to the Kenyan tax payers.  It is in the public interest that costs be kept to the bare minimum to protect the diminishing public resources. Those are the orders of the court.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 27th day of February 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE