1.The litigation in this rather sad narrative began with a Petition dated 07/05/2015. In that Petition, the Applicants herein sued the Respondents for alleged violations of their constitutional rights – including the anti-discrimination clause in Article 27 of the Constitution – and asked for the following remedies reproduced here verbatim:
2.The Petitioners were successful in that litigation. By a judgment dated 30/09/2016, the Learned Justice M. Odero found in their favour. The disposition of the case, reproduced verbatim, was as follows:In conclusion, based on the foregoing, I find that:
3.The Petitioners extracted a decree issued on 11/10/2016 which is in the exact terms as the judgment. In pertinent part it reads:It is Hereby Decreed:
4.The Petitioners’ Counsel also went for Party and Party Costs taxation. In a ruling dated 10/10/2017, the Learned Deputy Registrar taxed the filed Bill of Costs at Kshs. 1,599,549.
5.Next, the Petitioners applied for a Certificate of Order Against the Government pursuant to Order 29 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Learned Deputy Registrar issued one on 29/01/2018. It is important to reproduce it in its entirety. It reads thus:
6.This Certificate of Order Against the Government became a subject of two Applications in that Petition: one, by the Applicants here, aimed at reviewing the substantive judgment to bring it in line with the Certificate of Order Against the Government; while the other, by the Respondents herein, aimed at reviewing the Certificate of Order Against the Government for being at odds with the substantive judgment. In a ruling dated 30/09/2021, the Respondents prevailed. This Court ruled that:
7.The Court, therefore, declined to review the judgment in the Petition and carved out the particulars included in the Certificate of Order Against the Government.
8.This background information, unfortunately, disposes the present Judicial Review Application on behalf of the Applicants. The Application seeks the following prayers:1.That the order of mandamus do issue compelling the Principal Secretary, State Department of Planning, Ministry of Devolution and Planning and the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance & the National Treasury to pay to the ex parte application the judgment debt in the sum of Ksh 2,415,000/= allocate ex parte applicants 2 ¼ acres of land to each ex parte applicant and pay to the ex parte applicants costs which have been taxed and certified by the Registrar at Ksh 1,599,549/= together with all accrued interest at 14% per annum from the 10th day of October, 2017 until the date of payment, arising from the decree of this Court issued from 30th September, 2016 in Peter O. Nyakundi & 68 Others Vs The Principal Secretary, State Department of Planning, Ministry of Devolution and planning Commissioner of Police & 3 Others Petition No. 24 of 2015.2.That the Respondents pay the ex parte Applicants’ costs of this Application.
9.It is readily obvious that the orders sought cannot be granted. This is because, as per the Ruling dated 30/09/2021, the particulars contained in the Certificate of Costs Against the Judgment, were carved off. And the judgment, as delivered in Petition No. 24 of 2015 and the Certificate of Costs Against the Government, as it remained after the ruling dated 30/09/2021, is incapable of being enforced by an order of mandamus as the Applicants request. They both are, as the Applicants freely admitted in their post-judgment Application in Petition No. 24 of 2015 insufficiently specific to be enforced by an order for mandamus.
10.The result is that the Judicial Review Application herein must fail. It is hereby dismissed.
11.There will be no order as to costs: each party will bear its own costs.