[2020] KEELC 3429 (KLR)
The court found that both prayers in the Respondent’s motion—seeking security for costs and a stay of proceedings—had been overtaken by events because the Applicant’s application to set aside the arbitral award had already been determined and allowed earlier the same day. As a result, there was no pending...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 3429 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Cheseret Arap Korir; Respondent: Equatorial Land Holdings Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 15 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Respondent's Motion for Security for Costs and Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome
- Respondent's motion dismissed with costs to the Applicant.
- Judges
- SM Kibunja
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Stay of Proceedings, Arbitral Award Challenge
- 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
Cheseret Arap Korir
Applicant
Equatorial Land Holdings Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Respondent's Motion for Security for Costs and Stay of Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondent has made a reasonable case for requiring the Applicant to provide security for costs.
- 2 Whether stay of proceedings in respect of the Applicant’s application dated 6th May, 2019, pending the provision of security of costs should issue.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both prayers in the Respondent’s motion—seeking security for costs and a stay of proceedings—had been overtaken by events because the Applicant’s application to set aside the arbitral award had already been determined and allowed earlier the same day. As a result, there was no pending application to stay, and the basis for security for costs no longer existed. The Respondent’s motion was therefore dismissed in its entirety, and costs were awarded to the Applicant pursuant to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Court Disposition
Respondent's motion dismissed with costs to the Applicant.
Orders
- The Respondent’s Notice of Motion dated 10th June, 2019 is dismissed with costs to the Applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
E & L MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2019
CHESERET ARAP KORIR...........................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
EQUATORIAL LAND HOLDINGS LIMITED.......RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Respondent filed the Motion dated 10th June, 2019 seeking in prayer (1) to have the Applicant ordered to within 30 days deposit in court or in a joint interest earning bank account in the names of Law firms on record Kshs. 2 Million or some other substantial sum in respect of the Respondent’s costs of arbitration of Kshs.525,500 and its anticipated legal costs of the arbitration pending the determination of the Applicant’s application dated 6th May, 2019 that seeks to have the arbitral award set aside. The Respondent also seeks in prayer (2) for stay of proceedings of the Applicant’s application dated 6th May, 2019 that seeks the setting aside the arbitral award pending the provision of the payment in prayer (1) and costs. The application is based on the ten (10) grounds on its face and supported by the affidavits sworn by David May, the Managing Director on the 10th June, 2019 and 26th July, 2019.
2. The application is opposed by the Applicant through his replying affidavit sworn on the 5th July, 2019.
3. The learned Counsel for the Respondent filed their written submissions dated 23rd September, 2019. No submissions by the learned Counsel for the Applicant in respect of this application, was traceable on the record.
4. The issues for determinations are as follows:
a. Whether the Respondent has made a reasonable case for requiring the Applicant to provide security for costs.
b. Whether stay of proceedings in respect of the Applicant’s application dated 6th May, 2019, pending the provision of security of costs should issue.
c. Who pays the costs?
5. The court has carefully considered the grounds on the Motion, the affidavit evidence, submissions, the record and come to the following findings;
a. That the Applicant’s Motion dated the 6th May, 2019 that is sought to be stayed under prayer (2) has since been determined and allowed vide the ruling delivered today. That prayer has therefore been overtaken by events.
b. That the Court having allowed the Applicant’s Motion dated the 6th May, 2019 and dismissing that by the Respondent’s dated 10th June, 2019 through the ruling delivered earlier today, prayer (1) of the application seeking for security for costs has also been overtaken by events.
c. That in view of the findings in (a) and (b) above, the Respondent has failed in both prayers in the Motion, and pursuant to Section 27 of the civil Procedure Act Chapter 21 of Laws ofKenya should pay costs to the Applicant.
6. That the upshot of the foregoing is that the Respondent’s Notice of Motion dated 10th June, 2019 seeking for security of costs and stay order has no merit and is dismissed with costs.
It is so ordered.
DatedandsignedatEldoretthis26thday ofFebruary, 2020.
S. M. KIBUNJA
JUDGE
Ruling read in open court in the presence of:
Mr. Kimani for Applicant.
Mr. Menezes & Maganga for Respondent.
Court Assistant: Christine