SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Westmont Holdings Sdn.BHD v Central Bank of Kenya [2021] KECA 393 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 393 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
393
Citation
[2021] KECA 393 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureApplication for a certificate that a matter of general public importance is involvedCoramR.N. Nambuye, P.O. Kiage, S. ole Kantai
Holding

The Court finds the Motion to have no merit and dismisses it with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The respondent (Central Bank of Kenya) filed an application for security for costs in the sum of Ksh.87,620,000. The applicant (Westmont Holdings SDN.BHD) sued the respondent for Ksh.185,500,000, claiming a refund of certain sums of money paid as a deposit towards the purchase of a property in Nairobi. The suit was dismissed, and the applicant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the issue to be canvassed on appeal transcends the circumstances of the particular case and has a significant bearing on the public interest.
  2. Whether the point of law raised is substantial and will have a significant bearing on the public interest.

Reasoning

The Court ruled that the issue of awarding costs or an order directing the payment of security for costs is not substantial and there is no uncertainty in law on that issue. The Court also stated that determinations of fact in contests between parties are not a basis for granting certification for an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Outcome

Dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Payment of further security for costs

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi – Ruscone [2013] eKLR
  • Malcom Bell v Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi & Others Supreme Court Application No. 1 of 2013
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case