[2022] KEHC 12928 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 12928 (KLR)

The court found that the respondents had established sufficient grounds for security for costs, particularly as the appellants failed to oppose the application or demonstrate a bona fide appeal. The evidence showed the appellants had previously admitted to owing the sums awarded and had not fulfilled repayment...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 12928 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Dorcas Ndugi Njoroge (Sued as the Executor of the will of John Njoroge Keige (Deceased)); Appellant: Michael Robert Karanja; Appellant: Shaz Two Limited; Respondent: Tajdin Thanawalla; Respondent: Jane Mulii Kamene; Respondent: Veronica Kamene Musyimi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E377 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
A Mabeya
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Arbitration Award Enforcement, Judicial Discretion, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution Security for Costs Arbitration Award Enforcement Judicial Discretion Appeals Process

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dorcas Ndugi Njoroge (Sued as the Executor of the will of John Njoroge Keige (Deceased))

Appellant

Michael Robert Karanja

Appellant

Shaz Two Limited

Appellant

Tajdin Thanawalla

Respondent

Jane Mulii Kamene

Respondent

Veronica Kamene Musyimi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellants should be ordered to provide security for costs pending the determination of the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have established sufficient grounds to warrant an order for security for costs against the appellants.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants' failure to respond to the application affects the exercise of the court's discretion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had established sufficient grounds for security for costs, particularly as the appellants failed to oppose the application or demonstrate a bona fide appeal. The evidence showed the appellants had previously admitted to owing the sums awarded and had not fulfilled repayment plans. The absence of a response from the appellants made it difficult to ascertain their ability to pay if unsuccessful. Exercising its discretion, the court determined that requiring security for costs was necessary to prevent the respondents from being prejudiced by a potentially fruitless appeal process. The application was therefore allowed, and the appellants were ordered to...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The appellants are ordered to deposit Kshs 13,435,167.81 in a joint interest earning account in the names of the advocates on record as security for damages and assessed arbitral costs within 14 days.
  • In the alternative, an order to attach three apartments from ‘The Shaza’ development on LR MN/1/19797 Mombasa to secure the decretal amount if the deposit is not made.