[2024] KEELRC 531 (KLR)

[2024] KEELRC 531 (KLR)

The court found that requiring the appellant, an unemployed and ill individual, to deposit security for costs would effectively deny him access to justice and the opportunity to prosecute his appeal. The court emphasized the specialized nature of employment and labour litigation, where litigants often lack the means...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELRC 531 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Omar Osman Juma; Respondent: Cello Thermoware Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Appeal E067 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
AK Nzei
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs Discretion, Unfair Termination, Employment Appeals
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Security for Costs Costs Discretion Unfair Termination Employment Appeals

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omar Osman Juma

Appellant

Cello Thermoware Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should be ordered to provide security for costs as a condition for prosecuting the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's financial status and health justify exemption from security for costs.
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to deny the application for security for costs in employment and labour matters.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that requiring the appellant, an unemployed and ill individual, to deposit security for costs would effectively deny him access to justice and the opportunity to prosecute his appeal. The court emphasized the specialized nature of employment and labour litigation, where litigants often lack the means to furnish security for costs. The rules governing the Employment and Labour Relations Court grant wide discretion regarding costs, and the court must exercise this discretion judiciously and in the interest of justice. The respondent's application for security for costs was therefore dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the application.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 10/8/2023 is dismissed.
  • Each party will bear its own costs of the application.