Mathew M. Kisao & 43 others v Chandan Jethanand Gidoomal & 2 others [2018] KEELC 3169 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that plaintiffs cannot force a non-party to deposit security for costs—Order 26 rule 1 protects defendants, not the people suing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Availability of an order for security for costs against a non-party in favour of plaintiffs
The orders sought are not available to the applicants; Order 26 rule 1 applies only to security for costs of a defendant or subsequent party, and alleged breach of a Court of Appeal consent is a matter for that court
The court examined the annexures and found only one application attributable to Kigo Ng'ang'a; the alleged Court of Appeal consent order was not annexed, and any breach of it is punishable by the court that made it. Order 26 rule 1, on its plain reading, secures costs for a defendant or third or subsequent party, not for plaintiffs, and cannot be directed at a non-party. The plaintiffs' remedy is execution for costs in the normal manner or joining Ng'ang'a if they have a claim.
Legal principles established
#- Order 26 rule 1 CPR contemplates security for costs in favour of a defendant or third party, not in favour of a plaintiff, and cannot be invoked against a person who is not a party to the proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 11th April 2017 is dismissed for want of merit with no order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 26 rule 1 and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mathew M. Kisao & 43 others v Chandan Jethanand Gidoomal & 2 others [2018] KEELC 3169 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3169/eng@2018-05-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.