[2013] KEELRC 13 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent failed to comply with its earlier order to deposit a title deed as security and did not provide any convincing reason for this non-compliance. The respondent merely repeated previous arguments about operational difficulties without substantiating them or offering new evidence. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEELRC 13 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Jasper Nyaboga; Respondent: Party of National Unity; Garnishee: Equity Bank Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 951 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Vary Security for Costs Order
- Outcome
- application allowed; previous order varied to require cash deposit as security for costs.
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Variation of Court Orders, Enforcement of Court 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
Jasper Nyaboga
Claimant
Party of National Unity
Respondent
Equity Bank Limited
Garnishee
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Vary Security for Costs Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should vary its earlier order requiring deposit of a title deed as security and instead order a cash deposit of Kshs.5,000,000.
- 2 Whether the respondent has provided sufficient justification for non-compliance with the original security order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent failed to comply with its earlier order to deposit a title deed as security and did not provide any convincing reason for this non-compliance. The respondent merely repeated previous arguments about operational difficulties without substantiating them or offering new evidence. The court determined that its authority must be upheld and that the claimant's interests in securing any potential award must be protected. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to vary the earlier order, requiring the respondent to deposit a cash security of Kshs.5,000,000 within seven days, failing which the claimant would be at liberty to execute. The court also...
Court Disposition
application allowed; previous order varied to require cash deposit as security for costs.
Orders
- The order issued on 1st August 2013 is hereby varied.
- The respondent shall deposit in court a cash security of Kshs.5,000,000 instead of a land title deed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 951 OF 2013
BETWEEN
JASPER NYABOGA……….........……………………………………………………………CLAIMANT
VERSUS
PARTY OF NATIONAL UNITY…………..…………………........………………………RESPONDENT
AND
EQUITY BANK LIMITED……………...……………………………………………………GARNISHEE
Rika J
CC. Mr. Kidemi
Mr. Khaseke instructed by Mohammed Muigai Company Advocates for the Claimant
Mr. Ngare instructed by Gathara Mahinda and Company Advocates for the Garnishee
Ms. Maina instructed by Humphrey & Company Advocates for the Respondent
RULING
1. This is the Ruling on the application made by the Claimant dated 2nd September 2013, which seeks the following Orders:-
a. The Court be pleased to very paragraph 1 (d) of its Order issued on 1st August 2013, and direct the Respondent to deposit the sum of Kshs.5,000,000 in cash as security for any compensatory award and other terminal dues that may be found due to the Claimant in place of a title deed.
b. Any other order or relief the Court may deem appropriate.
c. Costs of this application
2. Both parties agree the Respondent has not deposited a title deed as proposed by the Respondent, and ordered by the Court earlier. The Court had ordered the title deed be deposited by 9th August 2013, in default, the Respondent be at liberty to seek variation of the orders, reverting for the earlier order for cash deposit.
3. There is no convincing reason shown by the Respondent why there was no compliance. Instead, the Respondent returned to Court with a rehash of the same old argument about its inability to run its operations, in the event of making a cash deposit as security. Quite clearly, the Respondent has not taken the orders of the Court seriously.
In view of this, IT IS ORDERED:-
a. The order issued on 1st August 2013 is hereby varied.
b. The Respondent shall deposit in Court a cash security of Kshs.5,000,000 instead of a land title deed.
c. The said amount be deposited within 7 days, in default, the Claimant shall be at liberty to execute.
d. It is further ordered that the parties schedule the main claim for hearing at the Court Registry, on a priority basis.
e. Costs in the Cause.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 17th day of December 2013
James Rika
Judge