1.The plaintiff instituted this suit through the plaint dated August 14, 2017 seeking judgment against the defendant for the following orders: -a.The sum of Kshs. 10,573,524 being the cost of setting up the plaintiff’s sales outlet.b.Damages for loss of revenue.c.Cost.
2.The defendant responded to the plaint through the defence and counterclaim dated September 17, 2019.
3.The plaintiff thereafter filed the application dated June 4, 2021 seeking leave to substitute the Plaintiff, Chase Bank Limited, with Chase Bank Limited (In Liquidation) and for leave to prosecute the suit as such.
5.The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant’s legal officer Mr. Kevin Kimani and is based on the grounds that: -a.The Plaintiff instituted the suit on August 14, 2017 at which point the Plaintiff had just been placed under Receivership and the Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation appointed as its Receiver.b.Vide Gazette Notice No. 3651 of April 16, 2021, the Central Bank of Kenya appointed the Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation as Liquidator of Chase Bank Kenya Limited (in Receivership) pursuant to Section 50 (6) of the Kenya Deposit Insurance Act, 2012 and Section 9 (1) and (5) of the Banking Act.c.Concomitantly, the Central Bank of Kenya vide Gazette Notice No. 3652 of April 16, 2021, revoked the Plaintiff's license with immediate effect pursuant to Section 6(1)(a) of the Banking Act.d.Pursuant to Section 56 (2) of the Kenya Deposit Insurance Act, upon the appointment of the Liquidator, this Honourable Court’s sanction ought to be sought for the continuance of this Suit.e.The institution of this Suit predates the appointment of the Liquidator, hence the necessity to substitute the Plaintiff herein.f.The substitution of the Plaintiff is necessary for the determination of the real dispute as between the parties which dispute should be heard on its merits.g.No prejudice and/or injustice will be occasioned to the Defendant by the grant of the orders sought in the matter.h.In the premises, it is just, fair and equitable that an order for substitution of the party do issue to enable the fair and just determination of this Suit.
6.The respondent opposed the application through the replying affidavit of its Country Finance Manager Mr. Alaa Ahmed Mahmoud Abdo El-Gindy who states that by a press release dated April 17, 2021, the plaintiff was declared insolvent and incapable of satisfying any adverse court order against it in favour of the defendant. He avers that the plaintiff should be ordered to deposit security of costs as a condition for the granting of the leave sought in the application.
7.The application was canvassed by written submissions.
8.I have considered the application, the defendant’s response, the submissions by counsel and the authorities cited. The main issue for determination is whether the applicant has made out a case for the granting of the orders sought in the application and whether the court should make an order for security for costs as a condition for the granting of the said orders.
10.Further in Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Githinji & 2 others, CA No. 38 of 2013  eKLR, the Supreme Court emphasized that: -
11.The law governing security of costs is set out under Order 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides as follows :-1.In any suit the court may order that security for the whole or any part of the costs of any defendant or third or subsequent party be given by any other party.2.If an application for security for costs is made before a defence is filed, there shall be filed with the application an affidavit setting out defence the grounds of the defence together with a statement of the deponent’s belief in the truth of the facts alleged.3.Where it appears to the court that the substantial issue is which of two or more defendants is liable or what proportion of liability two or more defendants should bear no order for security for costs may be made.4.In any suit brought by a person not residing in Kenya, if the claim is founded on a bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument or on a judgment or order of a foreign court, any order for security for costs shall be in the discretion of the court.5(1)If security for costs is not given within the time ordered and if the plaintiff is not permitted to withdraw the suit, the court shall, upon application, dismiss the suit.(2)If a suit is dismissed under subrule (1) and the plaintiff proves that he was prevented by sufficient cause from giving the required security for costs the court may set aside the order dismissing the suit and extend the time for giving the required security.6.(1) Where security by payment has been ordered, the party ordered to pay may make payment to a bank or a reputable financial institution in the joint names of himself and the defendant or in the names of their respective advocates when advocates are acting.
12.It is not disputed that the plaintiff is insolvent and under receivership. The question which the court has to grapple with is whether the mere fact that a company is insolvent and unable to pay costs is a ground for the granting of orders for security of costs. In the case of Indigo Garments (E P Z) Ltd (In Receivership) vs Apex Apparels (E P Z) Ltd  eKLR the court held that: -
13.I have perused the pleadings filed herein and I note that the plaintiff’s claim is not frivolous or an abuse of the court process. At this interlocutory stage in the proceedings, the court cannot say that conclusive evidence has been presented to show that the plaintiff will be unable to pay costs its current financial status notwithstanding. It is therefore my finding that an order of security of costs may jeopardize the plaintiff’s recovery plan.
14.In the circumstances of this case, I am unable to find that there is a basis for granting an order for security of costs. I however find that the application dated June 4, 2021 has merit and I therefore allow it as prayed with no orders as to costs.