[2006] KEHC 1120 (KLR)
The court held that the discretion to order security for costs must be exercised judiciously, considering all relevant circumstances. In this case, although the plaintiffs had failed to pay costs from a previous suit and had filed multiple suits involving the same parties, the pleadings from the previous cases were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1120 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Revelation Church of Christ Bible Study; Defendant: Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Revelation Miracle Centre
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 104 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- GG Okwengu
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Discretion of Court, Vexatious Litigation, Res Judicata, Costs Awards
- 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
Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Revelation Church of Christ Bible Study
Plaintiff
Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Revelation Miracle Centre
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be ordered to provide security for costs before prosecuting the suit.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs are vexatious litigants due to previous dismissed suits and unpaid costs.
- 3 Whether failure to pay costs in a previous suit justifies an order for security for costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the discretion to order security for costs must be exercised judiciously, considering all relevant circumstances. In this case, although the plaintiffs had failed to pay costs from a previous suit and had filed multiple suits involving the same parties, the pleadings from the previous cases were not before the court, making it impossible to determine if the current suit was res judicata or if the plaintiffs were vexatious litigants. The mere fact that costs from a previous suit remain unpaid does not, in itself, justify an order for security for costs, especially when there are established procedures for execution of costs that have not been shown to be exhausted....
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for security for costs is dismissed.
- Costs of the application are not specifically awarded.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
Civil Case 104 of 2004
CHAIRMAN, SECRETARY, TREASURER
REVELATION CHURCH OF CHRIST BIBLE STUDY……….........................……… PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN, SECRETARY, TREASURER
REVELATION MIRACLE CENTRE…..............................................................…… DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
By a chamber Summons filed on 18th May 2006, the Defendants/ Applicants seek to have the plaintiffs ordered to provide security for costs before prosecuting the suit under order XXV rule 1 of the civil Procedure Rules. The applicant also seeks to have the costs of the application provided for.
It is the applicant’s contention that the Plaintiff/Respondent is a vexatious litigant who had brought a previous suit against the Defendant raising the same issues as in the present suit, and that the previous suit which was HCCC No. 151 of 2002 was dismissed with costs on the 5th October 2004 for want of prosecution and that the Plaintiff has failed to pay the taxed bill of costs of 50,000/= but has instead proceeded to file the current suit.
The Plaintiff/Respondent objects to the application contending that it has no merit.
The advocate for the Respondent has submitted that the principles for an order for security for costs has not been established as what is in issue is not a colossal sum but is in fact an order for eviction, and that the Respondents abode is not untreaceable nor are the Respondents impercunious. He has relied on the following authorities in support of this position:
Lonrho Motors EA Ltd. v/s Insurance Companyof East Africa [2005] e KLR.
Shalchalaga kwa Jirongo & Another v/s Board ofTrustee National Social Security Fund [2005] e KLR
Timothy Manyara & 144 Others v/s PyrethrumBoard of Kenya [2005] e KLR
I have considered the application before me, the submissions of counsels and the authorities cited. I concur that an order for security for costs is a discretionary order which a court can make depending on the circumstances of the case and whether in the opinion of the court it is just and meet to exercise such a discretion. Such circumstances may include factors such as those referred to in the authorities cited i.e. the Respondents place of abode whether the Respondents will be able to pay any costs awarded against it, and whether the applicant has a bona fide defence, but those are of course not exclusive.
In this case it would appear that the main reason for requiring security for costs is the fact that there has been several cases involving the parties and the applicant maintains that the Respondent is a frivolous and vexatious litigant as he has failed to pay costs ordered in the previous suit but has instead brought another suit.
Although the parties generally appear to agree on the existence of the previous suits between the parties i.e. HCCC 151 of 2002 and HC Misc. Cause No. 508 of 1999, the pleadings in respect of these suits have not been laid before this court and therefore it is not possible to determine whether the current suit is res judicata or whether the Respondent is indeed a frivolous and vexatious litigant.
Be that as it may, the fact that an order for costs has been made in a previous suit and has not been met cannot be reasons enough to order for security for costs. There are procedures provided under order XXI of the Civil Procedure Rules for execution and there is no evidence that the procedure provided in these rules have been initiated or exhausted.
I am therefore not persuaded that this is an appropriate case in which I should exercise my discretion in the applicant’s favour. The application is accordingly dismissed.
Dated signed and delivered this 19th day of October 2006.
H. M. OKWENGU
JUDGE