Republic v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Defence exparte Liteline Enterprises Limited [2016] KEHC 1344 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

PETITION NO. 184 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT NAIROBI, CIVIL SUIT NO.  1577 OF 2012

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT CHAPTER 21 LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE LAW REFORM ACT CAP 26 LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT (NO. 4 OF 2015) OF KENYA

BETWEEN

REPUBLIC …………………………........................APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE CABINET SECRETARY

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ………………..........RESPONDENT

EXPARTE

LITELINE ENTERPRISES LIMITED

JUDGMENT

1. Vide  Notice of Motion  dated  28th April  2016, the Exparte  applicant  herein  Liteline  Enterprises  Limited   seeks  from this court  Judicial Review Orders of Mandamus  compelling the respondent Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Defence  to pay shs  924, 554 plus interest  at 18% per annum being outstanding  balance owed to it from the decree  dated   5th November   2015  arising from  judgment  issued on  30th April  2015   in CMCC  1577/2012  against  the respondent  at  Milimani  commercial  courts.

2. The applicant also seeks for Judicial Review   Orders of Mandamus to compel the respondent   show cause why the money   has not been settled   and why the respondent should not be committed to civil jail.

3. The application was filed on 3rd May 2016 pursuant to the leave granted on 2nd April 2016 to commence   the judicial review proceedings.  The applicant  relies on the grounds contained in the statutory  statement, verifying  affidavit   in support of the application for leave filed  in  21st April  2016  and the supporting  affidavit of   Hardeep  Panesar  the director  of the exparte  applicant sworn on   28th April  2016, as  well as the annextures  thereto.

4. In the  grounds  and affidavits, it is  deposed that the sum  due is  balance  of the decreed  sum after  the respondent  paid  part of the decree totaling  to shs  1,237,559. 50 on 23rd  September   2014 and that despite  reminders to clear the balance due, the respondent  had neglected.

5.  There was no replying affidavit filed within the time given to the respondent  as the one filed on 21st September   2016 without leave   of court was struck out.

6. The application  was argued orally before me, with Miss Ogutu representing the applicant and Miss Maina representing   the respondent   and urging   on points of law.

7. Miss Ogutu’s submissions echoed the application, the grounds and depositions of Mr Hardeep Panesar.

8. In her response, Miss Maina on behalf of the respondent   contended that the respondent is misjoined to these proceedings hence the application should be struck out as he   was not a party to the suit in the court below.

9. Secondly that the  claimed sum was settled  before judgment  hence the   interest  should only be  from date  of default  to settlement thus from  19th October  2010 to  23rd  September  2014.  Thirdly  that there  have  been no  contempt  proceedings  to  warrant  a committal to civil jail orders  sought.

10. I have carefully considered the application for Judicial Review Orders of Mandamus dated 28th April 2016.  The issues for determination are:

1) Whether the application is properly before the court for misjoinder of parties.

2) Whether  the applicant is   entitled  to the orders sought

3) What orders should this court make?

4) Who should bear the costs of the application.

11. On  the issue  of misjoinder, the court  notes that  the decree  dated  5th November  2015  as given on  30th April  2015  names the Honourable Attorney General, Permanent  Secretary Ministry of State of Defence and Capital Construction Ltd  as  defendants.  The same  applies   to the Certificate  of Order  against the Government  dated  24th February 2016  and  given  on 24th February 2016.

12. On the other  hand  the application  herein names  the Cabinet  Secretary  Ministry  of defence   as the respondent  who should be ordered  to pay the  decretal sum.  Indeed, there is a misjoinder  of parties  who  hail from  the  same Ministry of  Defence.  The accounting officer of a Ministry is the Principal  Secretary  who is  answerable to the Cabinet Secretary.  However, the law is clear that misjoinder   of parties does not render proceedings a  nullity.

13. In addition Section 100 of the  Civil Procedure  Act empowers this court at any  time and  on  such terms  as to costs  or otherwise  as it may think fit  amend  any defect  or error  in any proceeding –in a court  and all the necessary  amendments   shall be  made for the  purpose of  determining  the real  question or  issue  raised by or  depending   on the proceeding.

14. In this  case, the real issue  for determination is whether there is  any decree money due and  owing  by the Ministry of Defence to the applicant. Iam satisfied that the naming of the Cabinet Secretary as opposed to the Principal Secretary Ministry of Defence was  a procedural  error   in the proceeding which is  curable  by an  amendment  and by application  of Sections 1A,1B,and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act  and Article 159  of the Constitution  which  enjoins  this court to  administer  justice without  regard to undue  procedural technicalities. In addition the error  committed  and the amendment  herein will not occasion any prejudice  to the respondent   as none has  been demonstrated.

15. Accordingly, on my own motion, I hereby amend the proceedings herein to substitute the Cabinet Secretary with the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Defence.

16. On the second  issue of  whether the  amount claimed  is due, the respondent’s  counsel    contends that  the claim   was settled  in 2014  before judgment  and that therefore  interest  should only be from the date of  default to the date  of settlement  in 2014.  I have   perused   decree in CM CC 1577/2012.  In that case, judgment   was entered   on 30th April 2015 by Honourable C. Obulutsa Mr (SPM) for shs  1,116,108. 00.  Interest was calculated from the date of default and it  was added as  shs  909,827 from 19th October 2010 totaling shs  2,025,936. 41.  There are also  costs of the suit.  If indeed   the respondent   paid  the claimed  sum on  23rd September  2014 before judgment   as admitted by the applicant and as the  claim was  a liquidated  one, I am in agreement  with the respondents’ counsels submissions  that the  principal sum was settled before judgment  and therefore  interest   would only run from date of default  on 10th October  2010  to the date when  the sums  were settled  which is on  23rd September  2014  and not later than that  date. Accordingly, I uphold the objection by the respondent.

17. On whether  the Mandamus  order for Notice to show  cause  should issue, I find that  Notice to show  cause is  a process  of enforcement  or execution of the order  of mandamus  if issued  compelling  payment of the  sums due.  In this case  there is no  execution   proceeding, which proceeding would follow issuance of Judicial Review  orders of Mandamus.  Accordingly, the  prayers  No. 2 and  3 of the  Notice of Motion are  premature  and are not available  to the exparte  applicant  at this stage.

18. On what  orders  this court  should make,  I note   the interest  on the decree  as extracted  on  30th April   2015  and issued on  5th November  2015 was erroneous  as it  covered the period beyond   the date when the  sums due as  claimed was settled.  It therefore follows that decree is amenable to an amendment.  This court has no jurisdiction at this stage in Judicial Review proceedings to amend the decree issued in CM CC 15177/2012. The parties must return to the trial court for appropriate action.

19. In the end,  I find that  the applicant  has not  satisfied  the court that   it is entitled to  the Judicial Review Orders  of Mandamus  as prayed and accordingly  I hereby  dismiss the application dated  28th April  2016  with no orders  as to costs.

20. Orders accordingly.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 21st day of September 2016.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of Miss Ogutu for applicant

Miss Maina for Respondents

CA: Adline