Saira Banu Gandrokhia & Saima Shoukat Ali Khan v Principal Secretary Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & Attorney General [2016] KEHC 233 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.  323 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY SAIRA BANU GANDROKHIA AND SAIMA

SHOUKAT ALI KHAN FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR ORDERS OF MANDAMUS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES ORDER 53

AND

IN THE MATTER OF CMCC NO.  64 OF 2010 BEFORE THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT NAIROBI

AND

IN THE MATTER OF PART IV OF THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 8 AND 9   OF THE LAW REFORM ACT

SAIRA BANU GANDROKHIA...................................................1ST APPLICANT

SAIMA   SHOUKAT ALI KHAN................................................2ND APPLICANT

VERSUS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY   MINISTRYOF INTERIOR AND COORDINATION

OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT............................................1ST RESPONDENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL.........................................................2ND RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1. By  a notice  of motion  dated  28th July  2016  pursuant  to leave  to apply  granted on 26th July  2016, the exparte  applicants   Saira Banu  Gandrokhia  & Saima  Shoukat  Ali Khan seek from this court Judicial Review order of mandamus to issue compelling  and  directing  the respondents Principal Secretary Ministry of Interior and  Coordination  of National  Government  and the Attorney  General to  pay  to the exparte applicants the decretal sum of kshs 2,415,358 as decreed by the Senior Principal  Magistrate’s Court  in Chief Magistrate’s Civil case  No. 64  of  2010;  and that costs of  the application be  provided  for.

2. The  notice of motion is supported by the statutory statement and verifying affidavits sworn by Saira  Banu Gandrokhia and  Saima Shoukat Ali Khan sworn on 25th July 2016  accompanying the chamber summons  dated 25th July 2016  for leave to apply.

3. This court  did grant to the exparte  applicant’s leave to institute Judicial Review  proceedings  on  26th July  2016 and ordered  that the said  substantive motion  be filed   and  served upon  the respondents  within 21 days  of  the date of  leave.

4. The  substantive  motion  was  dutifully  filed within  21  days  on  29th July  2016.

5. The exparte  applicant’s  case is that  on 19th January  2007  they  were  charged  with the offence of stealing  by clerk contrary  to Section  281  of the Penal Code in criminal  case No. 551/2007  and that  after  a full  trial, they  were acquitted  of the charges   in a judgment  delivered on 15th February  2009.

6. Following their acquittal, the exparte applicants instituted a civil suit against the Attorney General on behalf of the police who prosecuted them, for malicious   prosecution.  The Police department falls under the Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government.

7. That  on 19th June  2012, judgment  was entered in favour  of the exparte applicants and it  was decreed that the exparte applicants  were  each  and  jointly  entitled  to shs 2,070,358 together with costs of  shs 344,510. 000 amounting to kshs  2,414,358. 00.

8. That  Certificate of Order  was  served  upon the respondents on 19th June  2015 but that  despite several  reminders todate, the exparte  applicants  have refused, failed and  or neglected  to settle   the decree.

9. That as the  provisions of Section  21(4)  of the Government Proceedings Act prohibit attachment of Government  property, the order that  commends  itself against the Government  for failure to settle decree  is mandamus s  to compel such payment.

10. Further, that the provisions of Section 70  of the Public  Finance  Management Act mandate the  1st respondent  as the  accounting officer  of the concerned Ministry to  satisfy the  decretal sum.

11. Copies of  the judgment  in the civil suit, decree, certificate  of costs, Certificate of  Order against  the  Government   and  several  reminders  for  settlement   were  annexed  as exhibits.

12. In response  to the notice  of motion, the respondents  filed  a replying  affidavit   sworn by  C.F. Kimani, Legal  Officer,  Office of the  President on 21st  November  2016   in which  he deposes  that they received   a letter from  the Attorney  General’s  office  advising payment  of shs  3,454,510 to the exparte  applicants herein  being decretal  sum in the civil suit.

13. That they  projected  and  requested the National Treasury for the said sum of money to be allocated in the 2016/2017  financial year but that they received a letter from Treasury indicating that  there  was  no budget   allocation for  settlement   of legal claims for the Ministry  in the budget   allocation for  the year  2016/2017.

14. That therefore the Ministry is currently not in a position to settle the decretal sum.

15. According  to Mr Kimani, an  individual  should not  be  held liable for Government liability and lack of funds from the National Treasury  and that  the  1st respondent  has not  refused to  pay the exparte  applicants.

16. The parties advocates submitted orally before me on 6th December 2016  with  Mrs  Mugo urging  on behalf  of the exparte applicants  and  relying  on the statement, the verifying  affidavits  and  exhibits; that  this court  should  grant the orders  sought as prayed.

17. Miss  Gathoka on behalf of the respondents  submitted, relying on the  replying affidavit whose contents I have reproduced  above  and  stated   that the  1st  respondent had not refused to settle decree but that money was  requisitioned from the  National Treasury  but that  the same was never allocated  hence the delay.

18. Counsel further submitted that the respondents acknowledge the debt due but that until the National Treasury releases the funds they would not be in a position to pay.  Further, that they have made further request and as soon as the money is released, the decree herein shall be   settled.

Determination

19. I have  considered  the  exparte  applicant’s  notice of motion, the supporting  documents, statutory statement  and verifying affidavit. I have also considered the replying affidavit and the   respective parties’ advocates oral submissions.

20. The issue for determination is whether the orders   sought are  available to the exparte applicant.

21. Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act provides:

“ Save  as aforesaid, no execution  or attachment  or process  in the nature  thereof   shall be  issued  out of   any such  court for enforcing  payment by the  government of any such  money or costs as aforesaid, and no person shall be individually liable any order for the payment by the government, or any government  department, or any officer  of the  government  as such, of  any money  or costs.”

22. In Kisya Investments Ltd  vs  Attorney  General  & Another [2005] 1 KLR 74  the High Court  comprising Ibrahim  and  Visram JJ(as  they were then) held:

“ History  and  rationale   of government’s  immunity  from execution  arises from the following…..Firstly, there  has been a policy  in respect  of Parliamentary control over  revenue  and this is  three fold  and  is exercised in respect of  (i)  The  raising of revenue (by taxation or borrowing);(ii)Its  expenditure; and (iii)  The audit  of public  accounts.  The satisfaction of  decree or judgments is deemed to be an expenditure by Parliament  and  as  a result of  this must be justified  in law  and  provided for  in the Government’s expenditure.  It is  for this reason  that  Section 32  of the Government Proceedings   Act provides that any  expenditure  incurred  by or  on behalf  of the Government  by reason of this Act  shall be  defrayed out  of the monies provide by Parliament.  Parliamentary control over expenditure  is based  upon the  principle  that all  expenditure  must rest  upon legislative authority  and   no payment  out of   public funds  is legal  unless  it is authorized  by statute, and any  unauthorized  payment may  be recovered.  As a result of the foregoing, which was borrowed from the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 (Section 37) of England, this is a warning that any payment by Government must be covered by some appropriation.  It is said that parliament is very jealous of its   control over the expenditure and this is as it should be.  No ministry  or department has any  ready  funds at all times to satisfy  decrees  or judgments- while existence  of claims  and  decrees   may be known to the ministries and departments, they  have to notify  the Ministry  of Finance  and Treasury  of the same   so that  payment is arranged for or provisions made in the government expenditure.  The  second  situation, which arises from the above, is  that once  a decree or judgment  is obtained   against the government, it would require some reasonable  time to have it forwarded to the Ministry of Finance, Treasury, Controller and Auditor General etc for scrutiny and  approvals  for it to be  paid from the consolidated   fund.  The Ministries and Departments do not have their “own” funds to settle   such decrees or payments and considering the nature of the government structure, procedures, red tape and large number of claims, this could take a long time.  If execution  and  or attachment  against the  government  were allowed, there is no doubt  that the government  will not be  able to pay immediately  upon passing of decrees and  judgments   and  will be  inundated  with executions  and  attachments  of its assets  day  in day out.  Its  buildings  will be  attached  and its  plans  and  equipment   will be attached, its  vehicles , aircraft, ships  and boats  will be   attached.  There will be no end to the list of   likely   assets   to be attached   and auctioned by the auctioneers hammer.

No government can possibly survive such an onslaught.  The  government  and  therefore  the  state operations  will ground  to a halt  and paralyzed  and  soon the government  will not only be  bankrupt   but its  constitutional and  statutory  duties  will not be  capable  of  performance and  this will  lead  to chaos, anarchy and  the breakdown  of the Rule  of Law.  This is the rationale or the objective of the law that prohibits execution against and attachment of the government assets and property.”

23. In view of the above position which I concur  with, the Civil Procedure Rules do not permit execution against the Government  including  County Governments  and therefore  the only remedy  available  to the decree  holders  against  the  Government  is the remedy of  Judicial Review  by way  of an order  of mandamus to compel  the Government  and  more particularly the Accounting Officer of the relevant State Department to settle   the decree  of the court.

24. In Republic V Attorney General Exparte James Alfred Koroso JR 44/2012 Honourable Odunga J stated:

“……in the present case, the exparte applicant has   no other option of realizing the fruits of this judgment since he is barred from executing against the Government.  Apart from mandamus, he has no option of ensuring that the judgment that he has been awarded is realized.  Unless something is done he will forever be left babysitting his barren decree.  This state of affairs cannot be allowed to prevail under out current constitutional dispensation in light of 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  judgments  have been decreed  by  courts of competent  jurisdiction  cannot enjoy  the fruits  of their judgments  due to  road blocks   placed   on the 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 or 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 of  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 case  upon him  by Parliament.  The fact that an 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 mandamus  cases it  is recognized that when statutory   duty is   case 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 mandamus  to 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 the 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 no longer  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   employer of the concerned public officer and to uphold the dignity and  authority  of the court.”

25. From the above judicial decisions  which though  persuasive  but good  law, it is clear that the only  remedy  available  to such a decree holder against the Government is judicial review  remedy of mandamus  to compel  the Accounting Officer  of the relevant Ministry or State Department to settle the material decree.

26. In the instant case, the respondents do not dispute the decree.  They, infact, acknowledge the indebtedness in terms of the decree.  It therefore  follows that  the exparte   applicant’s  who are the decree  holders  have  rights which  have crystallized, to enjoy  the fruits  of their lawful  judgment  and those  rights must  not be  curtailed.  That right  must be safeguarded and enforced  by the court  as  espoused  in Article  159(2) (a) and  (b) of the Constitution that justice shall be administered  without  delay, and the  applicant’s  right to  access Justice under Article 48 of the Constitution protected.

27. The 1st  respondent  is under  a  public  duty to  settle  decree of  the court made in favour of the exparte applicants, in order that justice  may at the end  of the day be  served  because   there is  no other remedy  available  to the exparte  applicants.

28. Since  2012 when the decree in CMCC 64/2010  was made, the exparte applicant’s counsel has made  several  correspondences  to the respondents asking for  payment  but all  has fallen  on deaf ears.  The decretal sums due to each of the exparte applicants, severally and jointly is shs 2,070,848 as per Certificate of Order against the respondents with costs of shs 344,510 issued on 16th May 2015. That sum remains unsettled.

29. In view of the foregoing, the respondents cannot be heard  to say that  they  have no money  to settles the decree together with  certificate of stated costs since  5th November 2012and which decree was drawn and submitted to the Solicitor  General.

30. The affidavit sworn by C.F. Kimani legal officer Ministry of Interior  and  Coordination  of National Government  does not  contain a single  annexture  to show  that indeed  the  Ministry of Interior advised  the  National Treasury  of  the  decree herein  in good  time  for settlement  to avoid   escalation of  interest and costs.

31. That  being the case, the order  that commends  itself  in these Judicial  Review  proceedings is a Judicial Review order of mandamus  compelling  the 1st  respondent to settle  decree  in Milimani CMCC 64/2010 between the exparte applicants  herein and  the Attorney  General.

32. In the end, I find  this application for Judicial Review  merited  and   proceed  to grant  and issue the order of  Mandamus compelling   the  Principal Secretary, Ministry  of  Interior  and Coordination of National Government  who  is the Accounting  Officer of the Ministry/State Department to settle  decree in Milimani CMCC 64/2010 amounting to shs  2,415,358. 00 such  sums shall be  paid  to the exparte applicants within  a period  of one hundred  and  eighty days (180)  from the date  hereof.

33. In default of such settlement, the exparte applicant is at liberty to apply, upon expiry of the stated period.

34. Costs shall be in the cause.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 9th day of December 2016.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of Miss Mugo for the exparte applicant

Mr Munene for the respondents

CA: Lorna