Pride Properties Limited v Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited & another [2018] KEELC 3886 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether security for costs should be ordered against the plaintiff
The application was dismissed; the 2nd defendant adduced no evidence of the plaintiff's inability to pay costs, the Kshs.64 million held by the 1st defendant sufficed as security, and the application was brought after undue delay (laches).
Order 26 rule 1 confers a discretionary power which must be exercised reasonably and judiciously. The applicant bore the onus of proving inability to pay costs; it placed no evidence before the court. The plaintiff was not required to prove its own financial capacity. Given the prior finding of a prima facie case, ordering security would stifle access to justice, and the two-year delay in prosecuting the application attracted the doctrine of laches.
Legal principles established
#- The onus of establishing a plaintiff's inability to pay costs lies on the applicant for security for costs and must be proven, not merely alleged
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 29th February, 2016 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the plaintiff and the 1st defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 26 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pride Properties Limited v Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited & another [2018] KEELC 3886 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 29th February, 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3886/eng@2018-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.