[2010] KEHC 2219 (KLR)
The court found that the discretion to order security for costs must be exercised judiciously, considering both the appellant's right to appeal and the respondent's interest in recovering costs. In this case, the appellant was personally and genuinely aggrieved by the lower court's award and had been represented by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2219 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Umar Chibachi Omurunga; Respondent: Wildfire Flowers Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 61 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- SP Ouko
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Appeals, Judicial Discretion, Costs Awards
- 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
Umar Chibachi Omurunga
Appellant
Wildfire Flowers Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant should be ordered to provide security for costs pending the determination of the appeal.
- 2 Whether the respondent's apprehension regarding the appellant's ability to pay costs is sufficient to warrant an order for security for costs.
- 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to require security for costs in the circumstances of this case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the discretion to order security for costs must be exercised judiciously, considering both the appellant's right to appeal and the respondent's interest in recovering costs. In this case, the appellant was personally and genuinely aggrieved by the lower court's award and had been represented by counsel throughout. The respondent's apprehension about the appellant's ability to pay costs was not substantiated by evidence beyond the appellant's alleged lack of means. The appellant did not demonstrate vexatious conduct or that he was a mere puppet for others. The court concluded that it would be unjust to deny the appellant his right of appeal by imposing a security for...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for security for costs is dismissed.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
Civil Appeal 61 of 2009
UMAR CHIBACHI OMURUNGA........................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
WILDFIRE FLOWERS LIMITED.....................................DEFENDANT
RULING
The court below, N. N. Njagi, Principal Magistrate, awarded to the appellant against the respondent Kshs.50,000/= subject to 80% contribution in general damages and Kshs.3,000/= being special damages.
The respondent has drawn a cheque in the sum of Kshs.25,000/= in favour of the appellant in settlement of the judgment. The appellant has not signed a consent letter marking the matter as settled. Instead he has filed the instant appeal challenging the lower court’s decision. The respondent on the other hand has brought the instant application that the appellant provides security for costs for the appeal to be deposited in an interest earning account, failing which the appeal to be struck out.
The respondent has averred that it is reasonably apprehensive that the appellant shall not be able to pay the respondent’s costs should the appeal be dismissed as the appellant is unemployed and has no meaningful source of income or known assets. The respondent has proposed a sum of Kshs.50,000/= as security.
Learned counsel for the respondent has cited Joel K. Kibiwott and 4 others Vs. The Registered Trustees of Monastry of Our Lady of Victory, Nakuru HCCC No.146 of 2004.
The appellant has filed grounds of opposition arguing that the appellant has a right of appeal and the application is intended to frustrate and lock him out. That the apprehension expressed by the respondent is without basis. That the appeal is arguable with high chances of success.
I have considered these arguments and the only authority cited. Order 41 rule 9(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides:
“9. (1) At any time after the memorandum of appeal has been served, the court, in its discretion, may order the appellant to give security for the whole or any part of the costs of such appeal.”
Unlike sub-rule 2 where such order may be issued if the appellant is not ordinarily resident in Kenya and has no sufficient property in Kenya, the above sub-rule (1) under which this application is premised, the power to require security for costs is discretionary.
The court in considering such application must weigh two opposing positions not to unnecessarily prevent poor persons who may not raise security but who may indeed be aggrieved and have appeal with reasonable chances of success from exercising that right. Yet at the same time the court must secure the respondent in anappeal from the risk of having to incur further costs which he might never recover from the appellant if the appeal were to fail. The respondent having expressed fear on the appellants’ ability to meet its costs of the appeal, the burden shifted to the appellant to indicate if indeed he is capable. The appellant filed grounds of opposition and did not explain his position.
The application of a similar rule as our rule 9(1) was given in the code of Civil Procedure (India) by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla, KT Ninth Edition, Order 41 rule 11 at page 996 as follows:
“The mere fact that the appellant is poor or insolvent is no ground for demanding security for costs. Similarly mere non-payment of the costs of the original suit is no ground for calling upon the appellant to furnish security under this rule unless his conduct be shown to be vexatious, that is, such as indicates a wilful determination on his part not to obey the order of the court in respect of costs.
But the court will, as a general rule, demand security for costs for a poor or insolvent appellant if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the appellant is not the real litigant, but a mere puppet in the hands of others who are well able to furnish security or if the merits of the case are plainly in favour of the respondent”
(Emphasis supplied).
The appellant as I have observed is genuinely and personally aggrieved by the award and has filed this appeal. It is only just and
fair that no attempts are made to deny him his right of appeal. After all he has had an advocate representing him from the lower court upto this stage.
I exercise my discretion in favour of the appellant and decline to grant the orders sought in this application.
The application is dismissed. Costs in the cause.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nakuru this 11th day of June, 2010.
W. OUKO
JUDGE