[2007] KEHC 3599 (KLR)
The court found that it was appropriate for the plaintiffs to provide security for costs given the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the dispute over housing rights and the defendant's apprehension regarding recovery of costs. However, the court determined that the amount sought by the defendant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 3599 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joe Njuguna Wakaba; Plaintiff: Francis Muchangi; Defendant: Kenya Airports Authority
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1307 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Security of Costs
- Outcome
- Application for security for costs granted in part.
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Landlord Tenant Disputes, Right to Housing
- 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
Joe Njuguna Wakaba
Plaintiff
Francis Muchangi
Plaintiff
Kenya Airports Authority
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Security of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be ordered to provide security for costs in the suit against Kenya Airports Authority.
- 2 What is the appropriate amount of security for costs, if any, to be provided by the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that it was appropriate for the plaintiffs to provide security for costs given the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the dispute over housing rights and the defendant's apprehension regarding recovery of costs. However, the court determined that the amount sought by the defendant (KShs.1,000,000) was excessive given there were only two plaintiffs and 66 houses involved. The court exercised its discretion to set the security for costs at KShs.14,000 per plaintiff, balancing the need to protect the defendant's interests with fairness to the plaintiffs.
Court Disposition
Application for security for costs granted in part.
Orders
- Plaintiffs to provide security for costs at KShs.14,000 per plaintiff.
- Costs of the application awarded to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 1307 of 2004
1. Land and Environmental Law Division
2. Subject of main suit:-
(i) Landlord/Tenant
(ii) City Council of Nairobi/Kenya Airports Authorities
(iii) Housing
3. Members of Embakasi Village Welfare sue for housing right to occupy their houses.
4. Defendant prays for security of costs:-
(i) Application 8 September 05 security of costs of
KShs.1 million be provided.
5. In reply:-
(i) No good cause
(ii) If security to be paid it be only for 2 employees
Plaintiff for KShs.2,000/= or KShs.14,000/=
6. Held:
6. Case law - Nil
7. Advocates:
E.G. Jaraba for Jaraba & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff
G.M. Ibrahim for Nyiha Mukuma & Co. Advocates for the defendant
JOE NJUGUNA WAKABA ………………………..........................…….1ST PLAINTIFF
FRANCIS MUCHANGI (Suing on their own and on behalf of 64 other members
of Embakasi Village Welfare Group)………………......……………2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KENYA AIRPORTS AUTHORITY…………..................................……..DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
I Application 8th September 2005
1. The application of 8th September 2005 seeks for security of costs from the plaintiffs of Kshs.1, 000,000/=
2. The brief background of this application is that Joe Njuguna Wakaba and Francis Muchangi sued the Kenya Airports Authority for their rights to housing. They had attempted to bring a representative suit that touched on 500 to 66 houses within the Embakasi area. The application for the representative suit was accordingly rejected (Ojwang J.). The parties to the suit are therefore the two named plaintiffs.
3. The said housing scheme was originally owned by the City Council of Nairobi. The Kenya Airports Authority (the defendant herein) had taken over the houses specifically for their staff. The plaintiffs and others not before the court are resisting this and stated that they have a right to occupy the premises.
4. The defendant are of the opinion the plaintiffs may not be successful in their suit. They therefore pray that this court orders they pay security of costs of KShs.1,000,000/= to enable the defendant defend their suit bearing that their costs of doing so will be met.
5. The advocate for the plaintiffs states there are only two plaintiffs. The houses concerned are only 66 houses and this would mean KShs.14,000/= per house.
II Findings
6. I would agree that the plaintiffs provide security of costs to this suit. The application of 8th September 2007 is granted on terms that the amount of cost be KShs.14, 000/= per plaintiff.
7. There would be costs to the defendant/applicant herein.
Dated this 19th day of June 2007 at Nairobi
M. A. ANG’AWA
J U D G E
E.G. Jaraba for Jaraba & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff
G.M. Ibrahim for Nyiha Mukumu & Co. Advocates for the defendant