Wakilii

Serefaco Consultants Ltd v Euro Consult BV (Civil Application No. 16 of 2007)

Court of Appeal · [2007] UGCA 1 · 2007 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for security for costs and for payment of decretal sum, arising from a pending civil appeal
Decision
Application for security for costs granted; respondents ordered to furnish security within 45 days

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that the applicant had shown sufficient cause to require the respondents, who were foreign companies registered in the Netherlands with no assets within the Court's jurisdiction and against whom Ugandan judgments were not readily enforceable, to furnish security for the decretal sum and for further costs on appeal. The Court further held that where an application is supported by credible affidavit evidence that is not contradicted by any affidavit in reply, the averments stand unchallenged and may be accepted as true. The respondents' counsel's unsupported assertion of good reputation and financial standing carried no evidential weight.

Facts

The applicant company had obtained a High Court judgment (HCCS No. 509 of 1999) on 1 March 2002 against the respondents for Dutch Florins 816,505.98 (Euro 422,733.27) with interest at 6% per annum plus costs. The decree remained wholly unsatisfied. Attempts to execute, including a garnishee order nisi attaching payments under projects with the Ministry of Finance and Kampala City Council, failed when the High Court declined to make the order absolute on the basis that the contracting companies were separate legal entities from the respondents. The respondents, registered and domiciled in the Netherlands, were appealing the High Court judgment (Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2003). The applicant sought security for the decretal sum and costs, asserting the respondents had no assets within the Court's jurisdiction. The respondents filed no affidavit in reply; their counsel conceded the companies were registered abroad with no local property, but asserted they were of good reputation and standing.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause to require the respondents to furnish security for costs and for payment of the decretal sum pending appeal.
  2. Whether unchallenged affidavit evidence should be accepted as true where no affidavit in reply is filed.

Orders

  • Application allowed with costs to the applicant.
  • Respondents to furnish security for payment of the decretal sum in HCCS No. 509 of 1999 of Dutch Florins 816,505.98 (Euro 422,733.27) or the equivalent in Uganda Shillings with interest at 6% p.a. from March 2000 till payment in full.
  • Respondents to pay into court the taxed costs of Shs.13,088,759 incurred in prosecuting HCCS No. 509 of 1999.
  • Respondents to furnish further security for the costs of Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2003 in the sum of Shs.50,000,000.
  • Respondents to pay the applicant the costs of this application.
  • All payments to be made within 45 days from the date of the ruling.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Foreign Party with No Assets in Jurisdiction
Where the respondents to an appeal are foreign companies registered outside the jurisdiction with no assets within it, and the court's judgments are not readily enforceable in the foreign jurisdiction, sufficient cause is established for ordering them to furnish security for the decretal sum and for costs of the appeal.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Burden and Discretion
The burden lies on the applicant to show sufficient cause why a party should furnish further security for costs over and above the amount fixed by the Rules, and what amounts to sufficient cause is a matter for the court's discretion.
Evidence — Affidavits — Uncontroverted Evidence Where No Reply Filed
Where an application is supported by affidavit or other evidence that is credible in itself and not intrinsically unreliable or contradictory, and the respondent files no affidavit in reply, the facts deponed stand unchallenged and may be accepted by the court as correct and true.
Evidence — Submissions from the Bar — No Evidential Weight
An assertion made by counsel from the bar that is not supported by any evidence on record carries no evidential weight and cannot rebut credible uncontroverted affidavit evidence.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Court of Appeal Rules r.2(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.105(3)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.43
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.44

Cases cited (2)

  • Noble Builders (U) Ltd and Raghbir Singh Sandhu v Jabal Singh Sandhu (Civil Application No. 15 of 2002)
  • H.G. Gandesha and Kampala Estates Ltd v G.J. Lutaya (Civil Application No. 14 of 1989)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.