[2008] KEHC 3490 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient grounds or evidence to justify an order for security for costs against the appellant. The mere possibility that the appellant may not be able to pay the respondent's costs, without more, is not enough to restrict the appellant's undoubted right of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 3490 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Francis Ndungu Gachungei; Respondent: Kakuzi Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 774 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Right of Appeal, Burden of Proof, 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
Francis Ndungu Gachungei
Appellant
Kakuzi Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant should be ordered to provide security for costs as a condition for prosecuting the appeal.
- 2 Whether the respondent has demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify an order for security for costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient grounds or evidence to justify an order for security for costs against the appellant. The mere possibility that the appellant may not be able to pay the respondent's costs, without more, is not enough to restrict the appellant's undoubted right of appeal. The court emphasized that the right of appeal should not be unduly burdened by speculative concerns regarding costs, and that the merits or lack thereof of the appeal should not ordinarily be a basis for granting security for costs. Consequently, the application for security for costs was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for security for costs is dismissed.
- Costs of the application shall be in the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA A
AT NAIROBI MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS
CIVIL APPEAL 774 OF 2001
FRANCIS NDUNGU GACHUNGEI .......................APPELLANT
V E R S U S
KAKUZI LIMITED ................................................RESPONDENT
(Appeal from decree dated 8th October 2001 in Thika CMCC No. 1236 of 1999)
R U L I N G
This is an application (by chamber summons dated 25th October, 2004) by the Respondent in this appeal for an order that the Appellant do provide security for costs in a reasonable sum as the court may direct; in lieu of cash the Appellant may provide a surety, such surety to offer security either in cash or by way of a charge or mortgage on immoveable property. There is a further prayer that in default of providing security as the court may order the appeal be dismissed.
The application is brought under Order 41, rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules (the Rules). It is supported by an affidavit sworn by one JEREMY HUME, the managing director of the Respondent. The grounds of the application appearing on the face thereof are:-
1. That there is at the moment no assurance or guarantee that the Appellant will pay the Respondent’s costs of the appeal in the event that the appeal fails.
2. That the Respondent will be prejudiced unless security for costs is provided.
3. That the appeal has little or no chance of success.
The Appellant has opposed the application as set out in his replying affidavit filed on 29th November, 2004. The grounds emerging therefrom are:-
1. That the application is made in bad faith.
2. That there are no grounds to seek security for costs.
3. That the application is frivolous and an abuse of the process of the court.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Defendant. There was no appearance for the Plaintiff at the hearing of the application notwithstanding service of hearing notice. But I have considered the objections raised in the replying affidavit.
The Appellant is exercising his undoubted right of appeal. It has not been stated in the supporting affidavit upon what grounds the Respondent is apprehensive that the Appellant may not be able to pay its costs of the appeal. A bare allegation in that regard is not sufficient. And even then, it is doubtful in my view if the mere possibility of an appellant being unable to meet the respondent’s costs will be allowed to stand in the way of the exercise of the appellant’s undoubted right of appeal. There must be more, and the merits or lack thereof of the Appellant’s appeal should ordinarily not be one of them.
In the present case I find no reason why the Appellant should be burdened with an order for security for costs as a price for exercise of his undoubted right of appeal. There is no merit in the application. It is hereby dismissed. Costs thereof shall be in the appeal. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2008
H. P. G. WAWERU
J U D G E
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2008