[2023] KEHC 26304 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 26304 (KLR)

The court found that the delay in depositing the security for costs was not intentional but was caused by confusion regarding the bank at which the joint interest-earning account was to be opened. The plaintiff had provided evidence of the mix-up and the court was satisfied that this constituted sufficient cause for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 26304 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jennifer Maina; Defendant: Sanjeev Khagram; Defendant: Roselyne Njoroge; Defendant: Isaac Kyalo Musembi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 247 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Furnish Security for Costs and Reinstatement of Suit
Outcome
Plaintiff's application allowed; time for furnishing security for costs extended; security deemed duly furnished; suit reinstated; costs awarded to 1st defendant.
Judges
DAS Majanja
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Extension of Time, Reinstatement of Suit, Court Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Extension of Time Reinstatement of Suit Court Discretion

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jennifer Maina

Plaintiff

Sanjeev Khagram

Defendant

Roselyne Njoroge

Defendant

Isaac Kyalo Musembi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Furnish Security for Costs and Reinstatement of Suit

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend time for the plaintiff to furnish security for costs after the lapse of the original deadline.
  2. 2 Whether the security for costs deposited after the deadline should be deemed as duly furnished in satisfaction of the court's order.
  3. 3 Whether the suit should be reinstated after being dismissed for non-compliance with the security for costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in depositing the security for costs was not intentional but was caused by confusion regarding the bank at which the joint interest-earning account was to be opened. The plaintiff had provided evidence of the mix-up and the court was satisfied that this constituted sufficient cause for the delay. Since the security had already been furnished and the 1st defendant's position was now secured, the court exercised its discretion to extend the time for compliance, deemed the security as duly furnished, and reinstated the suit. The court did not consider the 10-day delay to be inordinate and found no prejudice to the 1st defendant.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application allowed; time for furnishing security for costs extended; security deemed duly furnished; suit reinstated; costs awarded to 1st defendant.

Orders

  • The security for costs for the 1st Defendant of Kshs. 1,500,000.00 provided by the Plaintiff and deposited on 22.06.2023 in a joint interest earning account is deemed as duly furnished in satisfaction of the order dated 12.04.2023.
  • The suit is hereby reinstated.