Mandala and Co. Advocates v Preps International Limited (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E042 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 5105 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the security for costs of Kshs 350,000 deposited pursuant to a conditional stay order of 18th January 2024 should be released to the Applicant
The court found the security should be released because the underlying application for review/reference had been dismissed and no application remained pending.
The court had on 18th January 2024 granted stay of execution on condition that the client deposit Kshs 350,000 as security for costs, which was deposited. The application for review/reference dated 22nd February 2023 had been dismissed on 6th June 2023. The record did not show any other pending application, so the court found the application merited and allowed it as prayed.
Whether the Respondent's claim that applications dated 6th September 2023 and 25th April 2023 remained pending defeated the release
The court rejected this, finding the ruling of 18th January 2024 had in fact addressed the application dated 6th September 2023.
The Respondent argued before the court that the 18th January 2024 ruling had not addressed the application dated 6th September 2023. The court examined its own records and found that paragraphs 1, 10 and 11 of the ruling made reference to that application, which guided the final findings. Any grievance with the ruling should have been pursued through the correct procedure.
Whether the application should be treated as unopposed
Yes - the Respondent filed no response, grounds of opposition or replying affidavit, and gave no good reason for non-compliance with directions.
The Respondent did not file a response to the application despite being granted leave on 20th March 2024. Counsel for the Applicant submitted the application was unopposed. The court held that orders should not be made in vain and, on that ground alone, the application was unopposed, though it nonetheless considered the issues substantively.
Legal principles established
#- Where a respondent fails to comply with directions to file a response without good reason, the application is treated as unopposed.
- A party dissatisfied with a ruling must pursue the correct procedure (e.g. review or appeal) rather than assert errors informally.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 14th March 2024 is allowed as prayed
- 2.Release of the deposited security/decretal sum of Kshs 350,000 to the Applicant Mandala & Co Advocates, to be transferred to Mandala & Company Account No 01136093156100 at Cooperative Bank, Kenyatta Avenue Branch
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original miscellaneous jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a deposit of security for costs made in the cause; no specific constitutional or statutory provision cited.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mandala and Co. Advocates v Preps International Limited (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E042 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 5105 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Nairobi ELC Misc. Cause No. E042 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5105/eng@2024-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.