[2013] KEHC 4328 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 4328 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff, being a foreign company with no assets within the jurisdiction, falls within the general rule that security for costs should be ordered. The Plaintiff's financial standing in India and the possibility of enforcing a Kenyan judgment in India were not sufficient to protect the Defendant from the expense and difficulty of enforcing a costs order abroad. However, the court also found that the Defendant had not justified the amount of KES 3 million sought as security, as there was no liquidated claim and no scientific basis for the figure. The court exercised its discretion to order security for costs in the reduced amount of KES 1 million, to be provided by...

Citation
[2013] KEHC 4328 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kentro Systems Ltd.; Defendant: Superior Printers Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 March 2013
Case Number
Civil Case 849 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application allowed in part; security for costs ordered at KES 1 million.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Foreign Plaintiff, Judicial Discretion, Costs Awards, Company Litigation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Security for Costs Foreign Plaintiff Judicial Discretion Costs Awards Company Litigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kentro Systems Ltd.

Plaintiff

Superior Printers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff, as a foreign company with no assets in Kenya, should be ordered to furnish security for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the amount of security for costs sought by the Defendant is justified.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant has demonstrated a bona fide defence to warrant the order for security for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff, being a foreign company with no assets within the jurisdiction, falls within the general rule that security for costs should be ordered. The Plaintiff's financial standing in India and the possibility of enforcing a Kenyan judgment in India were not sufficient to protect the Defendant from the expense and difficulty of enforcing a costs order abroad. However, the court also found that the Defendant had not justified the amount of KES 3 million sought as security, as there was no liquidated claim and no scientific basis for the figure. The court exercised its discretion to order security for costs in the reduced amount of KES 1 million, to be provided by...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; security for costs ordered at KES 1 million.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to provide security for costs in the amount of KES 1 million within 30 days of service of the order.
  • Security to be in the form of a performance bond from a reputable financial institution or insurance company, or a cash deposit in joint names of advocates in an interest-bearing account.