[2017] KEELRC 1849 (KLR)
The court found that the Respondent's application for security for costs was not justified, as the Claimant had presented a legitimate claim for adjudication regarding alleged unlawful termination. The mere fact that the Respondent claims to have settled all dues does not bar the Claimant from seeking redress for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 1849 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Munshi Zulekha Bahadur; Respondent: Metal Crowns Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 529 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Unlawful Termination, Procedural Fairness, Access to Justice
- 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
Munshi Zulekha Bahadur
Claimant
Metal Crowns Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant should be compelled to furnish security for costs before proceeding with her claim.
- 2 Whether the Respondent's assertion of having settled all dues precludes the Claimant from pursuing a claim for unlawful termination.
- 3 Whether ordering security for costs would unjustly impede the Claimant's access to justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Respondent's application for security for costs was not justified, as the Claimant had presented a legitimate claim for adjudication regarding alleged unlawful termination. The mere fact that the Respondent claims to have settled all dues does not bar the Claimant from seeking redress for unlawful termination. Furthermore, granting an order for security for costs at this stage would place an unnecessary limitation on the Claimant's right to access justice, contrary to established legal principles. The court relied on precedent that security for costs should not be used to prevent claimants from pursuing legitimate claims, especially in employment disputes where...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Respondent's application for security for costs is dismissed.
- Costs to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO 529 OF 2014
MUNSHI ZULEKHA BAHADUR.....................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
METAL CROWNS LIMITED....................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This ruling relates to the Respondent’s application brought by Notice of Motion dated 9th May 2016 seeking orders directing the Claimant to furnish security for the Respondent’s costs in the claim.
2. The application which is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Respondent’s Human Resource Manager, Stephen Mureithi is based on the following grounds:
a. That the Respondent has settled all the Claimant’s dues;
b. That the Respondent has a bona fide defence to the claim;
c. That the Claimant’s financial means are unknown to the Respondent since she left employment;
d. That the Respondent is therefore unlikely to recover its costs should it successfully defend the claim;
e. That it is in the interest of justice that the orders sought are granted.
3. In a replying affidavit sworn by the Claimant on 25th May 2016, she depones that the application seeking to compel her to furnish security is misguided and malicious as the Respondent terminated her employment prematurely before expiry of her contract. She adds that there was no valid reason for the termination and that procedural fairness requirements were not adhered to.
4. The Court was referred to the ruling by Abuodha J in Archybald Masinde Munialo v Metal Crowns Limited (Cause No 834 of 2014)in which the learned Judge held that an order for costs should not serve as an impediment to a claimant in prosecuting an otherwise legitimate claim. I have looked at the pleadings filed by the parties in this case and have formed the opinion that there is a legitimate claim for adjudication by the Court.
5. The Respondent’s application is premised on the ground that the Claimant was paid all her dues which she duly acknowledged. I do not think however that this would preclude the Claimant from bringing a claim for unlawful termination of employment.
6. Consequently, the Court finds that an order for costs at this stage would place an unnecessary limitation to the Claimant’s right to access the seat of justice.
7. The result is that the Respondent’s application is dismissed with costs being in the cause.
8. It is so ordered.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 27THDAY OF JANUARY 2017
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
Appearance:
Mr. Oduor for the Claimant
Mr. Muriuki for the Respondent