[2008] KEHC 1365 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 1365 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had established sufficient grounds for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the defendant, who is a foreign national, no longer resides in Kenya, and whose whereabouts are unknown. The risk of the defendant absconding or removing assets from the jurisdiction was deemed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 1365 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Dalbit Petroleum Ltd.; Defendant: Donas Sekwekwe Kalinda
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 146 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Warrant of Arrest and Attachment Before Judgment
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
Attachment Before Judgment, Security for Appearance, Foreign Defendant, Credit Facility Dispute
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Attachment Before Judgment Security for Appearance Foreign Defendant Credit Facility Dispute

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dalbit Petroleum Ltd.

Plaintiff

Donas Sekwekwe Kalinda

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Warrant of Arrest and Attachment Before Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be arrested and brought to court to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance in the sum of USD 152,319.17.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's assets should be attached in satisfaction of any decree that may be passed against him.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had established sufficient grounds for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the defendant, who is a foreign national, no longer resides in Kenya, and whose whereabouts are unknown. The risk of the defendant absconding or removing assets from the jurisdiction was deemed credible, justifying the need for security for appearance and attachment before judgment. The court exercised its discretion under Order XXXVIII of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act to grant the orders sought, subject to the defendant's right to avoid arrest by paying the claimed sum. If the defendant could not be traced, attachment of the listed...

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • Warrant of arrest to issue against the defendant to bring him to court to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance in the sum of USD 152,319.17.
  • The defendant shall not be arrested if he pays to the officer with the warrant the sum of USD 152,319.17.