[2022] KEHC 298 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 298 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant is a foreign company with no known assets or registered offices in Kenya, and that the respondent had presented reasonable grounds for apprehension regarding the appellant's ability to pay costs if the appeal is unsuccessful. The appellant failed to allay these concerns by not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 298 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Garsu Pasaulis, UAB; Respondent: Systemedia Technologies Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 April 2022
Case Number
Civil Appeal E034 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal
Outcome
application allowed; security for costs ordered against appellant
Judges
WA Okwany
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Foreign Entity Litigation, Enforcement of Costs, Discretion of Court, Burden of Proof, Appeals Process
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Security for Costs Foreign Entity Litigation Enforcement of Costs Discretion of Court Burden of Proof Appeals Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Garsu Pasaulis, UAB

Appellant

Systemedia Technologies Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, as a foreign entity with no registered place of business or assets in Kenya, should be ordered to provide security for costs in the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify an order for security for costs against the appellant.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant has shown ability to pay costs if the appeal is unsuccessful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant is a foreign company with no known assets or registered offices in Kenya, and that the respondent had presented reasonable grounds for apprehension regarding the appellant's ability to pay costs if the appeal is unsuccessful. The appellant failed to allay these concerns by not producing financial records or business registration documents. Balancing the interests of both parties, the court exercised its discretion to order the appellant to deposit security for costs as prayed by the respondent, finding this just and necessary to protect the respondent's right to recover costs and to avoid rendering the court process academic.

Court Disposition

application allowed; security for costs ordered against appellant

Orders

  • The appellant shall deposit security of costs in the sum of Kshs. 4,783,958 within 60 days from the date of the ruling.
  • The said costs shall be deposited in a joint interest earning account at Kenya Commercial Bank, Head Office, Kencom Branch, Nairobi in the names of advocates for both parties.