[2022] KEHC 10862 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 10862 (KLR)

The court found that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in its previous ruling, which stated that 50% of the claimed sum was USD 25,000 instead of the correct amount of USD 250,000. Both parties agreed that the amount claimed in the suit is USD 500,000, and therefore, the security to be deposited...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 10862 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: International Air Transport Association; Plaintiff: Saham Assurance Company Kenya Limited; Defendant: Roskar Travel Limited; Defendant: Rose Wanjugu Kariithi alias Rose Wanjugu Wanjohi; Defendant: Anne Nyambura Kariithi; Defendant: Monicah Wanjiru Kariithi alias Monicah Wanjiru Kareithi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Commercial Case E457 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Security for Setting Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for review allowed. Ruling of March 17, 2022 reviewed to correct the amount of security to USD 250,000.
Judges
WA Okwany
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Review of Court Orders, Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Security for Costs Review of Court Orders Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment

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

Parties

International Air Transport Association

Plaintiff

Saham Assurance Company Kenya Limited

Plaintiff

Roskar Travel Limited

Defendant

Rose Wanjugu Kariithi alias Rose Wanjugu Wanjohi

Defendant

Anne Nyambura Kariithi

Defendant

Monicah Wanjiru Kariithi alias Monicah Wanjiru Kareithi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Security for Setting Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in stating the amount of security to be deposited as a condition for setting aside the default judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the amount of security should be corrected from USD 25,000 to USD 250,000.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in its previous ruling, which stated that 50% of the claimed sum was USD 25,000 instead of the correct amount of USD 250,000. Both parties agreed that the amount claimed in the suit is USD 500,000, and therefore, the security to be deposited should be USD 250,000. The court exercised its power of review to correct the error and ordered that the defendants deposit USD 250,000 as security pending the final determination of the case.

Court Disposition

Application for review allowed. Ruling of March 17, 2022 reviewed to correct the amount of security to USD 250,000.

Orders

  • The ruling delivered on March 17, 2022 is reviewed to reflect that the amount to be deposited by the defendants in court to await the final determination of the case is USD 250,000.