IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION MISC. CIVIL APPL. NO. 366 OF 2013 BETWEEN REPUBLIC ............…………………….………………..APPLICANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL…………….………….RESPONDENT EXPARTE SAMUEL NDUNGU WAINAINA RULING 1. The Notice of Motion before the Court is dated 10 th December 2013 and it seeks an order of mandamus to compel the respondent to satisfy a decree issued in Milimani CMCC No. 10372 of 2003, Samuel Ndungu Wainaina v The Attorney General and BOG Kiarutura Secondary School. By a judgment of 2nd November 2013, the ex-parte applicant was awarded the sum of Ksh.350,000/= and interest thereon together with costs certified at Kshs.52,855/= 2. Despite demand and notice to the respondent, the judgment is yet to be satisfied. Furthermore, no replying affidavit has been filed to contest the claim. I am satisfied that on the basis of material before the Court, the application for mandamus is warranted. 3. The Notice of Motion dated 10th December is allowed and therefore:i. An order of mandamus be and is hereby issued directing the respondent to settle the Decree dated 2nd November 2004 arising from Milimani CMCC NO. 10372 of 2003 in favour of the ex-parte applicant with costs and interest accrued until payment in full. ii. The ex-parte applicant shall have costs of the application. DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 18th February 2014 D.S. MAJANJA JUDGE
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.