Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMiscellaneous Applications within the Petition (petition number not stated in judgment)· [2024] KEELRC 1446 (KLR)

James Finlay Kenya Limited v Anganga & 1043 others; John Khaminwa t/a Khaminwa & Company Advocates & another (Applicant) (Petition E133 of 2022 & Miscellaneous Application E167 & E087 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2024] KEELRC 1446 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (constitutional petition, first instance)
14 June 2024
1,096 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicants, Advocates of the High Court of Kenya acting for 1,044 Respondents in a constitutional Petition, filed miscellaneous applications seeking security for costs of Kshs. 1 million or sufficient security pending taxation of an intended Party to Party Bill of Costs, and a temporary injunction restraining the Petitioner from transferring ownership of its assets pending taxation. They relied on Order 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order 2014, alleging the Petitioner was selling its Kenyan assets to a Sri Lankan company. The Petitioner opposed, noting Scottish proceedings had been stayed and that it was not divesting. The Court directed the applications be determined within the Petition on affidavit evidence and submissions. Holding that the Petition is governed by the Mutunga Rules, not the Civil Procedure Rules, the Court found it unclear why civil procedure provisions were invoked. Rule 26 of the Mutunga Rules governs costs, with access to justice as the primary consideration. The Court doubted that orders could be granted in the names of Advocates who are not parties, applied the Supreme Court decision in Westmont Holdings v Central Bank of Kenya on security for costs, and found no evidence of divestment, noting the Petitioner retains its Saosa facility and Mombasa operations. The applications were declined with costs in the Petition.

Key legal issues

#
01

Applicability of Civil Procedure Rules to a constitutional petition

Holding

The applicable procedural law is the Mutunga Rules, not the Civil Procedure Rules, and it was unclear why the Applicants invoked civil procedure provisions

Reasoning

The matter is a constitutional petition under the 2013 Rules; the Court found no justification for invoking Orders 5, 40 and 51 and Sections 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act because what is before the Court is not a civil suit. Costs in such petitions are regulated exclusively by Rule 26 of the Mutunga Rules.

p. 2
02

Whether security for costs should be granted

Holding

No; the Applicants did not meet the standards in Westmont Holdings v Central Bank of Kenya, and access to justice would be impeded

Reasoning

The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Westmont Holdings, which underscored the primacy of access to justice. The Petition was genuine and arguable, involved matters of public importance, and there was no proof the Petitioner would not honour final orders on costs or that it was impecunious.

p. 3
03

Whether the Advocates, who are not parties, can obtain the orders sought

Holding

Doubtful; security for costs and injunctions cannot be granted in the names of Advocates who are not parties

Reasoning

Party to Party Bills of Costs are presented in the names of parties, while Advocate to Client Bills are in the names of Advocates and clients. The 1,044 Respondents were not named as Applicants, so the Court doubted orders could issue in the Advocates' names.

p. 3
04

Whether the Petitioner is divesting assets in Kenya to defeat costs

Holding

No evidence established that the Petitioner is relocating or placing itself beyond the jurisdiction

Reasoning

The exhibited document showed the Petitioner would retain its Saosa tea extraction facility and Mombasa packing operations, continues to invest in Kenya, and stated the sale would not affect pending litigation in Scotland and Kenya.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • In considering security for costs in constitutional litigation, the principle of access to justice is primary
  • Costs in constitutional petitions are governed by Rule 26 of the Mutunga Rules, at the discretion of the Court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applications are declined.
  2. 2.Costs in the Petition.
Jurisdiction invoked
Constitution of Kenya [Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 (Mutunga Rules) - petition jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "James Finlay Kenya Limited v Anganga & 1043 others; John Khaminwa t/a Khaminwa & Company Advocates & another (Applicant) (Petition E133 of 2022 & Miscellaneous Application E167 & E087 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2024] KEELRC 1446 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Miscellaneous Applications within the Petition (petition number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1446/eng@2024-06-14

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.