1.The ex-parte applicant (the applicant) sought leave of court to apply for a judicial review order of mandamus through Chamber Summons dated 27th January 2022. Leave was granted on 27th January 2022.
2.Subsequently, the ex-parte applicant filed Notice of Motion dated 9th February 2022 seeking an order of mandamus to compel the respondents to satisfy judgment dated 26th November 2019, decree issued on 13th February 2020 and certificate of costs dated 9th October 2020, all issued in Kakamega Environment and Land Case No. 546 of 2014, Charles Lutta Kasamani vs Attorney General & National Land Commission.
3.The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the ex-parte applicant who deposed that on 26th September 2019, he obtained a judgment in Kakamega ELC Case No. 546 of 2014 against the respondents and subsequently extracted the decree, certificate of costs and certificate of orders against the government. That no appeal is pending from the said decree which remains unsatisfied to date. The ex-parte applicant further deposed that despite service upon the respondents of the judgment, decree, certificate of costs, certificate of order against the government and all necessary notices, the respondents have failed to acknowledge and to satisfy the decree and certificate of costs. That despite addressing the second respondent to carry out a valuation of the land compulsorily acquired, it has refused to do so and that the respondents’ disobedience smacks of impunity which must be stopped by this court.
4.The respondents did not respond to the Notice of Motion.
5.The application was canvassed through written submissions. The ex-parte applicant filed submissions on 29th March 2022. The respondents did not file any submissions. In his submissions, the ex-parte applicant reiterated the contents of the Notice of Motion and the affidavit and urged the court to allow the application.
6.I have considered the application, the affidavit filed and the submissions. The sole issue for determination is whether the relief sought should be granted.
7.The circumstances under which a judicial review order of mandamus should issue were discussed in Kenya National Examinations Council v Republic Ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 others  eKLR where the Court of Appeal stated:
8.In this case, the ex-parte applicant has moved this court to compel the satisfaction of a judgment already decreed in its favour by a competent court of law. The ex-parte applicant has demonstrated by way of evidence the existence of the judgment as well as the respondents’ failure to satisfy the ensuing decree despite compliance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
9.A reading of the judgment dated 26th September 2019 shows that it required the respondents to adequately compensate the ex-parte applicant for compulsorily acquiring his property. Subsequent thereto, a decree was issued on 13th February 2020. The ex-parte applicant’s contention that the decree remains unsatisfied has not been contested by the respondents.
11.I have perused the court file in Kakamega Environment and Land Case No. 546 of 2014 and I have ascertained that the judgment, decree, and certificate of costs referred to in the application are in the said file. In the premises, the ex Parte applicant has made a case for the grant of the order of mandamus which he seeks.
12.In the result, I make the following orders:a.An order of mandamus is hereby issued compelling the respondents to satisfy judgment dated 26th November 2019, decree issued on 13th February 2020 and certificate of costs dated 9th October 2020, all issued in Kakamega Environment and Land Case No. 546 of 2014, Charles Lutta Kasamani vs Attorney General & National Land Commission.b.Since there was no prayer for costs in Notice of Motion dated 9th February 2022, I make no order as to costs.