Republic v Permanent Secretary Ministry of Provincial Administration & Internal Security Ex-parte Lawrence Kamau P Mwangi [2014] KEHC 7367 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI

MISC APPLICATION NO 311 OF 2012

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF MANDAMUS

REPUBLIC ......................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE PERMANENT SECRETARY

MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL

ADMINISTRATION & INTERNAL SECURITY...........RESPONDENT

EXPARTE:         Lawrence Kamau P. Mwangi

JUDGEMENT

By a Notice of Motion dated 16th August, 2012, the applicant herein,  Lawrence Kamau P. Mwangi, seeks the following orders:

THAT this Honourable  Court do issue an order of mandamus against the Respondent to the effect that he pays the exparte applicant the sum of Kshs.236,378/= within 14 days of service of this order and in default he be committed to civil jail for a period not exceeding 6 months.

THAT costs of this application be provided.

EX PARTEAPPLICANT’S CASE

The Motion is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant on 16th August, 2012.

According to the applicant, he was served with stealing and handling stolen property in Criminal Case No.420 of 2007 and acquitted of the charges on 10th April, 2008 for lack of sufficient evidence. He then filed Murang’a Senior Principal Magistrate’s court Case No.101 of 2009 for compensation against the said Attorney General for malicious prosecution on behalf of the commissioner of police and he was awarded the sum of Shillings 212,980/= inclusive of costs and interest up to 25th August, 2011 but the same has yet been paid to him despite serving the Attorney General with a Certificate of Order against the Government.

According to the applicant, the amount owed to him by the Respondent as at 25th August, 2011 was Kshs.212,980/= and the amount now outstanding is Kshs.236,378/= inclusive  of interest of Kshs.23,398/= from 25th November, 2011 to 25th August, 2012.

From the record the respondent was duly served with the Motion on 21st August 2012, but despite that the respondent has not opposed the instant application.

In High Court Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2012 between the Republic vs. The Attorney General & Another ex parte James Alfred Koroso, I expressed myself as follows:

“…the present case the ex parte applicant has no other option of realising the fruits of his judgement since he is barred from executing against the Government. Apart from mandamus, he has no option of ensuring that the judgement that he has been awarded is realised. Unless something is done he will forever be left baby sitting his barren decree. This state of affairs cannot be allowed to prevail under our current 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. Access to justice cannot be said to have been ensured when persons in whose favour judgements have been decreed by courts of competent jurisdiction cannot enjoy the fruits of their judgement due to roadblocks placed on their paths by actions or inactions of public officers. Public offices, it must be remembered are held in trust for the people of Kenya and Public Officers must carry out their duties for the benefit of the people of the Republic of Kenya. To deny a citizen his/her lawful rights which have been decreed by a Court of competent jurisdiction is, in my view, unacceptable in a democratic society. Public officers must remember that under Article 129 of the Constitution executive authority derives from the people of Kenya and is to be exercised in accordance with the Constitution in a manner compatible with the principle of service to the people of Kenya, and for their well-being and benefit…..The institution of judicial review proceedings in the nature of mandamus cannot be equated with execution proceedings.  In seeking an order for mandamus the applicant is seeking, not relief against the Government, but to compel a Government official to do what the Government, through Parliament, has directed him to do. The relief sought is not “execution or attachment or process in the nature thereof”. It is not sought to make any person “individually liable for any order for any payment” but merely to oblige a Government officer to pay, out of the funds provided by Parliament, a debt held to be due by the High Court, in accordance with a duty cast upon him by Parliament. The fact that the Accounting Officer is not distinct from the State of which he is a servant does not necessarily mean that he cannot owe a duty to a subject as well as to the Government which he serves. Whereas it is true that he represents the Government, it does not follow that his duty is therefore confined to his Government employer. In mandamuscases it is recognised that when statutory duty is cast upon a Public Officer in his official capacity and the duty is owed not to the State but to the public any person having a sufficient legal interest in the performance of the duty may apply to the Courts for an order of mandamusto enforce it. In other words, mandamus is a remedy through which a public officer is compelled to do a duty imposed upon him by the law. It is in fact the State, the Republic, on whose behalf he undertakes his duties, that is compelling him, a servant, to do what he is under a duty, obliged to perform. Where therefore a public officer declines to perform the duty after the issuance of an order of mandamus, his/her action amounts to insubordination and contempt of Court hence an action may perfectly be commenced to have him cited for such. Such contempt proceedings are nolonger execution proceedings but are meant to show the Court’s displeasure at the failure by a servant of the state to comply with the directive of the Court given at the instance of the Republic, the employer of the concerned public officer and to uphold the dignity and authority of the court.”

I see no reason to depart from the said reasoning which I adopt in this case.

Having considered the material on record and in the absence of any impediment, I do not see why the respondent should not be compelled to perform its statutory duty by settling the sums due from it to the applicant.

In the result I allow the application by Notice of Motion dated 16th August, 2012, and issue an order of mandamus against the Respondent compelling him to pay  the sum of Kshs.236,378/= to the applicant.

I however decline to grant an order for committal as sought since the decision whether or not to commit a person to civil jail in my view can only be made where there is proof that the respondent has disobeyed the Court order duly served on him together with the penal notice. In effect the said prayer is at this stage premature.

The applicant will have the costs of this application.

Dated at Nairobi this 21st January, 2014

G V ODUNGA

JUDGE

Delivered in the presence of Mr Wandaka for the applicant