[2021] KEHC 4573 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in depositing the initial security and had complied with the court's directions once the technical issues were resolved. The court held that the purpose of security is to ensure due performance of any decree or order, not to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 4573 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joseph Mwangi; Appellant: David Kiuru Maina; Respondent: Stephen Wambua Mulinge
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E206 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Stay Orders and Provision of Security
- Outcome
- application granted
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Reinstatement of 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
Joseph Mwangi
Appellant
David Kiuru Maina
Appellant
Stephen Wambua Mulinge
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Stay Orders and Provision of Security
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient reason for the delay in complying with the court's order to deposit security.
- 2 Whether a bank guarantee is an acceptable form of security under Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 3 Whether the orders for stay of execution should be reinstated pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in depositing the initial security and had complied with the court's directions once the technical issues were resolved. The court held that the purpose of security is to ensure due performance of any decree or order, not to punish the applicant. The court further determined that a bank guarantee is an acceptable and sufficient form of security in the circumstances, as the respondent would be able to activate it if necessary. Consequently, the application for reinstatement of the stay orders was merited and granted, subject to the applicants providing a bank guarantee for the balance of Kshs. 400,000...
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- The application dated 19th April 2021 is granted as prayed.
- The applicants shall provide a bank guarantee of Kshs. 400,000 within forty-five (45) days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. E206 OF 2021
JOSEPH MWANGI............................................1ST APPELLANT/APPLICANT
DAVID KIURU MAINA...................................2ND APPELLANT/APPLICANT
VERSUS
STEPHEN WAMBUA MULINGE................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicants filed an application dated 19th April, 2021 seeking for reinstatement of the orders granted on 20th April, 2021 in their application dated 19th April, 2021 as the temporary orders initially issued had lapsed. That the delay in complying with the court orders requiring them to deposit Kshs. 200,000 in court was due to technical hitches with the judiciary account which they finally managed to deposit on 10th May, 2021.
The Application is supported by the affidavit of JANEROSE M. NANJIRA sworn on 10th May, 2021. On 15th July, 2021 when the application came before this court for mention parties through their counsel, Miss Nanjira and Miss Oseko for the Applicants and Respondent respectively, informed the court that the application was not opposed save for the issue of security. Whereas the Applicants were willing to give a bank guarantee of the balance of Kshs. 400,000 the Respondent sought to have the balance paid to them.
The purpose of the security under Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules is not to punish the Applicant but to guarantee the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on the applicant. The Court of Appeal in Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 others [2014] eKLR,stated;
The exercise of the Court's power under Rule 107 is discretionary. In Marco Tool & Explosives Ltd – vs- Mamujee Brothers Ltd. (1988) KLR 730, this Court at page 733 held:-
“As the cases show the Court has unfettered judicial discretion to order or refuse security. Much will depend upon the circumstances of each case, though the guidance from Noormohamed's case is that the final result must be reasonable and modest.”
The respondents have not faulted the suitability of the bank that will issue the guarantee. Once the guarantee is issued by a bank, the respondent will be able to activate it upon completion of guarantee is a suitable security in the circumstances of this case.
The upshot is that the application dated 19th April 2021 is merited and is hereby granted as prayed. The applicant to provide a bank guarantee of Kshs.400,000 within forty five (45) days hereof. In default the orders staying execution shall stand vacated and the respondent shall be at liberty to execute. Costs of the application shall follow the outcome of the appeal.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 29thday of July, 2021
...................................
S. J. CHITEMBWE
JUDGE