Southern Investments Ltd v Mukaburura Foundation Investments Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 77 of 2007)

Court of Appeal · [2007] UGCA 79 · 2007 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application by notice of motion for an order that the respondent furnish security for costs in a pending civil appeal.

Decision

Application granted; respondent ordered to deposit UGX 29,037,500 as security for costs within 30 days.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

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

On an application for security for costs, the Court was satisfied that the respondent had filed numerous applications and appeals arising from HCCS No.79 of 2004, most of which were dismissed with costs to the applicant; that the respondent had failed to pay any awarded costs; and that the respondent's whereabouts and assets in Uganda were unknown. Finding little prospect that future costs would be recovered, the Court held it was a suitable case to grant the relief sought and ordered the respondent to deposit UGX 9,037,500 for past costs and UGX 20,000,000 (10% of the suit value) for future costs within 30 days, failing which the applicant could move to dismiss the appeal.

Facts

The applicant was the defendant in HCCS No.79 of 2004 brought by the respondent. The suit and a series of related applications and appeals filed by the respondent (including Civil Appeal No.4 of 2005 and several High Court applications) were dismissed, with costs awarded to the applicant on multiple occasions. Costs taxed and allowed against the respondent — UGX 2,523,000 in November 2006 and UGX 6,514,500 in June 2007 — remained unpaid despite demand, totalling UGX 9,037,500. A further appeal, Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2007, was pending before the Court of Appeal. The applicant's evidence was that the respondent had no fixed assets or property in Uganda, its whereabouts were unknown, and its owner was said to reside mainly in Djibouti. Even the respondent's former lawyer could not locate his clients. The applicant sought security for both past unpaid costs and anticipated future costs of the pending appeal.

Issues

Whether the respondent should be ordered to furnish security for costs already incurred and for future costs of the pending appeal.

Orders

The respondent deposits in court UGX 9,037,500 as security for costs already incurred before Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2007 is heard.
The respondent deposits UGX 20,000,000 (10% of the suit value) as security for future costs.
The total amount of UGX 29,037,500 to be deposited in court within 30 days; if not paid as ordered, the applicant is at liberty to move the court informally to dismiss the appeal.
The costs of this application are granted to the applicant.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Grounds for Ordering Security

Where a party has repeatedly failed to pay costs already awarded, has no known assets or property within the jurisdiction, and its whereabouts are unknown, the court may order it to furnish security for both past unpaid costs and the future costs of a pending appeal.

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Consequence of Default

An order for security for costs may direct deposit of the sum within a fixed period, and provide that on default the opposing party is at liberty to move the court to dismiss the appeal.

Legislation cited (5)

Court of Appeal Rules r.1(3)
Court of Appeal Rules r.42(1)
Court of Appeal Rules r.42(2)
Court of Appeal Rules r.43
Court of Appeal Rules r.104(3)

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.