[2024] KEHC 14518 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 14518 (KLR)

The court found that the appellants had deposited Kshs. 200,000 as security for the appeal. Since the appeal was allowed and there was no order as to costs in favour of the appellants, the purpose of the security had been fulfilled. The respondents, despite being served, did not oppose the application or demonstrate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 14518 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Mary Ngendo Gitau; Appellant: Esther Wangari Kariuki; Appellant: Mary Ngendo Kariuki; Respondent: Peter Gatonye Mungai; Respondent: Mary Wangari Mburu; Respondent: Jane Njambi Kabuchu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kiambu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E36 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Release of Security Deposit
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
DO Chepkwony
Legal Topics
Security for Appeal, Release of Funds, Costs Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Security for Appeal Release of Funds Costs Orders

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Ngendo Gitau

Appellant

Esther Wangari Kariuki

Appellant

Mary Ngendo Kariuki

Appellant

Peter Gatonye Mungai

Respondent

Mary Wangari Mburu

Respondent

Jane Njambi Kabuchu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Release of Security Deposit

  1. 1 Whether the security sum deposited by the appellants as security for the appeal should be released to them after the appeal was allowed.
  2. 2 Whether there is any prejudice to the respondents in releasing the security sum to the appellants.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded for the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants had deposited Kshs. 200,000 as security for the appeal. Since the appeal was allowed and there was no order as to costs in favour of the appellants, the purpose of the security had been fulfilled. The respondents, despite being served, did not oppose the application or demonstrate any prejudice that would result from the release of the funds. The court therefore allowed the application and ordered the release of the security deposit to the appellants through their advocates. No order was made as to costs for the application.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The security of Kshs. 200,000 deposited by the appellants in court on 19th May, 2022 as security for the appeal shall be released to the appellants through their advocate, Kang’ethe Waitere & Co. Advocates, for onward transmission to the appellants forthwith.
  • No order as to costs.