[2023] KEHC 886 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 886 (KLR)

The court found that the sum of Kshs 162,322 was deposited by the 1st Appellant as security for costs pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The appeal was determined in favour of the 1st Appellant, entitling it to the return of the deposited sum. The court noted that the Respondents did not oppose the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 886 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: East & Central Africa Enterprises Limited; Appellant: Samuel Muhiunu Kimani; Respondent: Dorcas Wairimu Ndirangu; Respondent: East Africa Star Bakeries; Respondent: William Owiti
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 475 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Release of Security Deposit
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
JN Mulwa
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Release of Deposit, Post Judgment Applications
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Release of Deposit Post Judgment Applications

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

East & Central Africa Enterprises Limited

Appellant

Samuel Muhiunu Kimani

Appellant

Dorcas Wairimu Ndirangu

Respondent

East Africa Star Bakeries

Respondent

William Owiti

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Release of Security Deposit

  1. 1 Whether the sum of Kshs 162,322 deposited in court as security should be released to the 1st Appellant after the appeal was determined in its favour.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of the original deposit receipt precludes the release of the deposited funds.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sum of Kshs 162,322 was deposited by the 1st Appellant as security for costs pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The appeal was determined in favour of the 1st Appellant, entitling it to the return of the deposited sum. The court noted that the Respondents did not oppose the application, and the only impediment to release was the loss of the original deposit receipt, which was explained and not disputed. The court held that in the absence of opposition and given the clear entitlement of the 1st Appellant, it was proper to allow the application and order the release of the funds to the Appellants' advocates for onward transmission to the 1st...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The sum of Kshs 162,322 deposited in court by the 1st Appellant is to be released to the Appellants’ Advocates M/s Michael Daud & Associates Advocates for onward transmission to the 1st Appellant.
  • No order as to costs.