Wakilii

Goodman Agencies Ltd v Hasa Agencies (K) Ltd (Civil Reference 1 of 2011)

Supreme Court · [2011] UGSC 25 · 2011 Reference Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to the full Supreme Court from the ruling of a single judge dismissing an application for further security for costs and security for past costs in a pending constitutional appeal
Decision
Reference allowed; order of the single judge set aside; respondent ordered to deposit Shs.200,000,000 as security for costs within 45 days

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 8 (treatment unverified) 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

On a reference from a single judge of the Supreme Court, the Court held that a reference under Rule 52(1)(b) must be made informally at the time of the ruling or in writing to the registrar within seven days, not by notice of motion accompanied by fresh evidence. Although the procedure adopted was wrong, the Court entertained the reference because it had been initiated by written application. It found the single judge erred in holding that ordering security for costs would deny justice: the respondent was a foreign company with no known address or assets and an appeal of doubtful prospects, so security should be provided. The reference was allowed and the respondent ordered to deposit Shs.200,000,000 within 45 days, with costs.

Facts

The applicant and respondent jointly filed High Court Civil Suit No. 719 of 1997 against the Attorney General to recover money. The respondent was struck off and ceased to be a party. The applicant later settled with the Attorney General by a consent judgment dated 2 September 2005 (Shs.14,485,547,842), approved and sealed by the High Court. On 14 September 2005 the High Court rejoined the respondent as a co-judgment-creditor and allotted it a portion of the settlement. The applicant petitioned the Constitutional Court (Petition No. 3 of 2008), contending the rejoinder breached Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution; the Constitutional Court allowed the petition with costs. The respondent appealed to the Supreme Court (Constitutional Appeal No. 5 of 2010, pending). The applicant applied to a single judge for security for costs, asserting the respondent was a foreign company with no known address or assets in Uganda or Kenya and that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success. The single judge dismissed the application, holding that ordering security would deny justice. The applicant referred the matter to the full court.

Issues

  1. Whether a reference to the full court from the decision of a single judge under Rule 52(1)(b) may be made by notice of motion accompanied by fresh evidence.
  2. Whether the single judge erred in dismissing the applicant's application for further security for costs and security for past costs.
  3. Whether the respondent, a foreign company with no known address or assets and an appeal of doubtful prospects, should be ordered to provide security for costs.

Orders

  • The reference is allowed.
  • The order of the single judge is set aside.
  • The respondent shall deposit Shs.200,000,000 within forty-five days from the date of the ruling as security for costs.
  • Costs of the reference awarded to the applicant.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — References from a Single Judge — Mode of Application under Rule 52
A reference to the full court from the decision of a single judge under Rule 52(1)(b) must be made informally and orally to the judge at the time the decision is given, or in writing to the registrar within seven days; it is wrong to make such a reference by notice of motion accompanied by additional evidence.
Civil Procedure — References from a Single Judge — Additional Evidence
On the hearing by three judges of an application previously decided by a single judge, no additional evidence may be adduced except with the leave of the court; ordinarily only the materials that were before the single judge are placed before the full court.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Judicial Discretion
The grant of security for costs and further security under section 404 of the Companies Act and Rule 101 of the Rules of the Supreme Court is a matter of judicial discretion, and an order for security for costs does not of itself amount to a denial of justice.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Foreign Litigant Without Known Address or Assets
Where a party has no known address and no apparent assets from which a successful litigant could recover costs, it is the more necessary that recovery of costs be guaranteed by an order for security for costs.
Company Law — Security for Costs against a Limited Company under Companies Act s.404
Where a limited company is a party and credible testimony gives reason to believe it will be unable to pay the costs of a successful opponent, the court may under section 404 of the Companies Act require sufficient security for those costs to be given.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Judicature Act s.8(2)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.41(2)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.52(1)(b)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.52(2)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.101
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.101(3)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.109(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.14(4)
  • Companies Act s.404
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.23 r.1
  • Constitution of Uganda art.26
  • Constitution of Uganda art.28(1)

Cases cited (8)

  • A.K.P.M. Lutaaya v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 1 of 2007)
  • Motor Mart (U) Ltd v Yona Kanyomozi (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 1999)
  • Kabogere Coffee Factory Ltd and Hajji Bruhan Mugerwa v Hajji Twaibu Kigongo (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 10 of 1993)
  • G.M. Combined (U) Ltd v A.K. Detergents (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • Noble Builders (U) Ltd and Another v Jabal Singh Sandhu (Civil Application No. 15 of 2002)
  • Lalji Ganji v Nahoo Vassanjet (1960) EA 315
  • Official Receiver v Narandes N. Chandrani (1961) EA 107
  • Banco Arabe Espanola v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
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.