[2005] KEHC 809 (KLR)
The court held that the right to access justice cannot be denied or made more difficult for individuals on the basis of poverty, age, or lack of formal employment. The defendant's application for security for costs was not justified solely on these grounds. The court emphasized that such orders should not be used to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 809 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Chege Mwangi; Defendant: Mugambo wa Gachocho Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 430 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Application for Security for Costs
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Access to Justice, Costs Orders
- 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
David Chege Mwangi
Plaintiff
Mugambo wa Gachocho Co. Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Application for Security for Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be ordered to deposit security for costs due to age, lack of formal employment, or alleged poverty.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the right to access justice cannot be denied or made more difficult for individuals on the basis of poverty, age, or lack of formal employment. The defendant's application for security for costs was not justified solely on these grounds. The court emphasized that such orders should not be used to bar potentially disadvantaged litigants from accessing the courts, referencing both English and Kenyan authorities that poverty alone is not a sufficient basis for ordering security for costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 19th July, 2005 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
9 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBICivil Suit 430 of 2004DAVID CHEGE MWANGI ………………………………...……………. PLAINTIFFVERSUSMUGAMBO WA GACHOCHO CO. LTD ………………………..….. DEFENDANTRULING
This is an application for security of costs under Order 25 Rules 1 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The defendant/applicant says that the Plaintiff is a 70 year old litigious person who has filed several suits in court, and who has no formal employment. It wants the Plaintiff to deposit Kshs.300,000/= in court as security towards the costs.
The respondent claims he has sufficient assets, and has explained briefly why he has filed the cases in Court.
I am not satisfied that just because the Plaintiff has no formal employment (at 70 how could he be expected to be in “formal” employment?), or that he is “poor”, or that he is “old” is sufficient reason to order him to deposit security towards the other side’s costs. The most important principle to bear in mind is an individual’s right to access justice, and that right cannot be denied, or made harder, to people who may be poor, old or employed. In fact these are the very people who need protection from others. Even in England, the poverty of a plaintiff is no ground for ordering security for costs (The Annual Practice, 1962, page 1827). In Kenya, too, the Court of Appeal in Noormohamed Abdulla vs Patel (1962) E A 447 affirmed that security for costs is not ordered solely on the grounds of poverty.
Accordingly, this application dated 19th July, 2005 is dismissed with costs.Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 1st day of December, 2005.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE