REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MISCELLANEOUS NO. 10 OF 2020 JACKLINE AURELLIA MWENDE & 19 OTHERS.......APPLICANTS VERSUS THE COUNTY SECRETARY, COUNTY OF MACHAKOS..............................................RESPONDENT RULING 1. The application before the Court is the Applicants’ notice of motion dated 14 th February 2020 expressed to be brought under Order 53 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, Sections 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act, Cap. 26 of the Laws of Kenya and all other enabling provisions of the law. The application seeks in the main that the Court be pleased to issue an order of mandamus directed against the Respondent compelling him/her to pay Kshs. 2,620,113/- being unpaid 2 instalments as per the consent judgment of court in favour of the Applicants recorded by this Honourable Court on 5th April 2016 in Nairobi ELRC No. 154 of 2013 Jackline Aurellia Mwende & 18 Others v Municipal Council of Machakos. The motion was also supported by the affidavit of Jackline Aurellia Mwende sworn on 30 th January 2020. 2. The Applicants sued the defunct Municipal Council of Machakos in ELRC Cause No. 154 of 2013 where they were the Claimants and were success in obtaining a consent judgment in their favour. This was on 5 th April 2016. To date, there has been non-compliance with this consent judgment and the Miscellaneous Cause before me does not bear the full story as the Court does not have the benefit of the proceedings in Cause 154 of 2013. In the premises I will decline issuing any orders of mandamus or other order pending the Applicants appropriately moving the Court in the appropriate manner. It is so ordered. Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 25th day of November 2021 Nzioki wa Makau JUDGE
Original judgment
Court of Kenya At Nairobi v The County Secretary, County of Machakos
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.