[2012] KEHC 1665 (KLR)
The court determined that the interests of justice require that, upon granting a stay of execution, adequate security for costs must be provided to protect the respondent. The court accepted the respondent's proposal that security be furnished either by way of a banker’s guarantee or by depositing Ksh. 200,000 in an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1665 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: BONAR (E.A) LIMITED; Appellant: STEPHEN REUBEN KARUNDITU; Appellant: ELIUD NJOROGE; Respondent: ASHUT ENGINEERS LTD
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 144 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Security for Costs and Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- Stay of execution granted on condition of provision of security for costs.
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Stay of Execution, Appeals Process
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
BONAR (E.A) LIMITED
Appellant
STEPHEN REUBEN KARUNDITU
Appellant
ELIUD NJOROGE
Appellant
ASHUT ENGINEERS LTD
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Security for Costs and Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the security for costs previously ordered should be varied upon the grant of stay of execution.
- 2 What form and amount of security is appropriate to safeguard the interests of the respondent during the pendency of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that the interests of justice require that, upon granting a stay of execution, adequate security for costs must be provided to protect the respondent. The court accepted the respondent's proposal that security be furnished either by way of a banker’s guarantee or by depositing Ksh. 200,000 in an interest-earning account in the joint names of both advocates. The court further directed that, if necessary, the directors of the applicant should sign the requisite authority to facilitate the provision of this security. This approach ensures that the respondent is safeguarded against potential loss while the appeal is pending, and that the applicant’s right to pursue the...
Court Disposition
Stay of execution granted on condition of provision of security for costs.
Orders
- Security for costs to be provided by way of banker’s guarantee or cash deposit of Ksh. 200,000 in an interest-earning account in the joint names of both advocates.
- Directors of the applicant to sign requisite authority for the security if necessary.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Civil Appeal 144 of 2012 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Rockwell","serif";} </style> <![endif]
Editorial Summary
1. Civil Appeal
2. Security of costs
BONAR (E.A) LIMITED ………..... APPELLANT/ORIGINAL DEFENDANT
STEPHEN REUBEN KARUNDITU
ELIUD NJOROGE ……...…….....…………….…..………... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ASHUT ENGINEERS LTD ………. RESPONDENT/ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF
(Being an appeal against the ruling of Hon. A.K. Ndungu, Senior Principal Magistrate on 21st May of 2007 in CMCC No. 11381 of 2005 at
Milimani Commercial Courts)
RULING NO. 2
1. The parties addressed this court on the issue of costs. The applicant having been granted stay of execution herein has requested that security be varied.
2. The respondent would feel reassured if stay is granted, security of costs be provided.
3. That this be by way of banker’s guarantee on a deposit of Ksh. 200,000/- or in alternative, cash in an interest earning account in names of both advocates.
4. That the directors sign the requisite authority for this security if need be. The security of decretal sum mentioned on 19th July 2012 at 11. 00 a.m.
DATED THIS 25th DAY OF JUNE 2012 AT NAIROBI
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Advocates:
i) T.W. Gaita instructed by M/s Gaita Co Advocates for
appellant/original defendant
ii) T.K. Mbaabu & M/s T.K. Kariba Mbaabu Co Advocates for
respondent /original defendant