Naqeeb Imtiaz Kara v Medanta Africare Limited [2020] KEELRC 902 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court ordered a respondent to deposit security for costs after it failed to oppose the application, confirming unopposed motions get granted as prayed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Security for costs
The respondent, having indicated through counsel that it required 30 days to deposit security, and the application being unopposed, the court granted the application in terms of prayer 3 of the notice of motion.
Counsel for the respondent, M/s Owuor, told the Court on 4/11/2019 that the respondent required 30 days to deposit security in terms of the application. The application remained unopposed to the date of the ruling. On that basis the court allowed the motion in terms of prayer 3 and made no order as to costs other than costs in the cause.
Legal principles established
#- An unopposed application may be granted in terms of the prayers sought
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 6th February is granted in terms of prayer 3 of the notice of motion, ordering the respondent to deposit security
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159(2)(d) and Article 48 of the Constitution; Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act (chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Naqeeb Imtiaz Kara v Medanta Africare Limited [2020] KEELRC 902 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/902/eng@2020-06-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.