RULING NO. 2
2. However, on 13 October 2022, the Court was informed that the said Geoffrey Kigochi had ceased being the County Secretary and that there was a new County Secretary. The Respondents asked for more time to comply with the decree which had precipitated the issuance of the warrants of arrest.
3. No agreement was reached and on 21 November 2022, the Court issued warrants of arrest against the new County Secretary, Mr. John Ochieng Auma, and Mr John Omondi Okongo, the Chief Officer, Finance.
4. On 19 December 2022, the Respondent filed a Motion seeking a stay of execution of the warrants for three months to enable settlement of the decree.
5. The Court dismissed the Motion on 1 February 2023.
6. On 7 June 2023, the Respondents filed another Motion seeking orders:
(i) …
(ii) THAT pending the hearing and determination of this application, there be stay of execution of orders issued on 4th April 2022 and all warrants of arrest which issued through it until the matter is heard and concluded.
(iii) THAT the firm of C.O. Obiero & Associates Advocates be granted leave vide an order in place of Sala Mudany & Co. Advocates for the Respondents.
(iv) THAT the Notice of Appointment of Advocate dated 12th May 2023 be deemed as duly filed and served upon payment of requisite fees.
(v) THAT after hearing of this application, this Court does consider reviewing/setting aside the warrants of arrest dated 28th February 2023 and 28th February 2023 against George Omondi Okongo and John Ochieng Auma respectively.
(vi) THAT the matter be declared as settled.
(vii) THAT costs of this suit be provided for.
7. The grounds advanced in support of the Motion were that the decree had been satisfied; warrants had been issued against the Chief Officer Finance whereas he had not been a party to the proceedings and therefore the warrants were issued without hearing him and that John Ochieng Auma was no longer the County Secretary.
8. The Court granted leave to the firm of C. Obiero & Associates Advocates to come on record on 8 June 2023.
9. When the application next came up, the Court was informed that the parties were negotiating and the Court gave them time to negotiate. The application was rescheduled to 22 June 2023.
10. On 22 June 2023, the parties requested more time and the Court directed that if no agreement was reached by 27 September 2023, the Court will determine the application.
11. The Court has considered the application, affidavits, and grounds of opposition and can make the following findings.
12. One, on 15 October 2020, the Court ordered the Respondents to pay the ex-parte applicants terminal dues/gratuity. The suit in question was not defended.
13. Two, the Respondents had made payment of terminal dues/gratuity to ex-parte applicants on or around 22 January 2019, 25 January 2019, 17 June 2019, 7 February 2019, and 8 July 2022.
14. Three, on 22 March 2022 after considering a judicial review application, the Court directed the Respondents to pay the ex-parte applicants Kshs 20,338,043/- and Kshs 606,215/-.
15. While addressing the judicial review application, none of the parties disclosed to the Court that some payments had been made to the ex-parte applicants.
16. Four, evidence of payment of terminal dues/gratuity was only brought to the attention of the Court when the Respondents’ instant advocates came on record.
17. Five, the ex-parte applicants have not sworn nor filed any affidavits to controvert or deny the depositions by the Respondents that payments of terminal dues/gratuity had been made.
18. Six, it appears that it is probable that the ex-parte applicants may be pursuing double payment from the County Government of Kisumu through the court proceedings. It is not upon the Court to direct the Respondents to audit their books. What is glaring is that the County Government opted not to defend the initial suit.
Conclusion and Orders
19. In light of the foregoing, the Court lifts the warrants of arrest issued on 6 October 2022 and 1 February 2023.
20. Each party to bear own costs of the application.