[2008] KEHC 377 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 377 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove any intention by the defendant to abscond or dispose of property as required under Order 38 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The evidence showed the defendant is a resident of Kenya, with established ties including property, utility consumption, and children born...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 377 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Hassan Mustafa; Defendant: Berti Berhane Hagos
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 381 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the defendant
Legal Topics
Security for Appearance, Order 38 Applications, Dismissal of Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Security for Appearance Order 38 Applications Dismissal of Application

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hassan Mustafa

Plaintiff

Berti Berhane Hagos

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons Application

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be ordered to provide security for her appearance under Order 38 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant intended to dispose of her property or abscond jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove any intention by the defendant to abscond or dispose of property as required under Order 38 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The evidence showed the defendant is a resident of Kenya, with established ties including property, utility consumption, and children born and schooled in Kenya. The vehicle in question was not being removed from the jurisdiction but was engaged in regular business. Consequently, there were no grounds to warrant an order for security for appearance or other reliefs sought by the plaintiff. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the defendant

Orders

  • The application dated 30.10.2008 is dismissed with costs to the defendant/applicant.