Wakilii

Agaba & Another v Wekesa (Miscellaneous Application 13 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1102 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for security for costs arising from main civil suit concerning land ownership
Decision
Application granted; respondent ordered to provide security for costs

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 High Court held that where a defendant demonstrates a prima facie likelihood of success in defending a claim founded on events from 1983 involving a deceased person, and the plaintiff is a foreign resident with no assets in Uganda, the court may exercise its discretion under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 26 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules to order security for costs. Application granted with respondent ordered to deposit UGX 30,000,000 as security.

Outcome

Application granted; respondent ordered to provide security for costs

Facts

The applicants were sued by the respondent in a land dispute concerning property comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 1057, Folio 20, Plot 26 Stanley Street in Kasese. The respondent claimed the property was fraudulently transferred to the late Atalyeba John in 1983. The respondent left Uganda for Kenya in 1981 due to insecurity and entrusted the property to a friend. The first applicant was sued as administrator of Atalyeba John's estate (who died in January 2018), though he did not hold that capacity. The second applicant was the entity collecting rent from the property. The respondent's earlier application for temporary injunction was dismissed with costs in the cause. The applicants contended they were wrongly sued, that the claim was barred by limitation, and that the respondent being a Kenyan citizen had no known property in Uganda against which costs could be enforced if the applicants succeeded in their defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants were entitled to an order requiring the respondent to furnish security for costs in the main civil suit.
  2. Whether the applicants had demonstrated a likelihood of success in their defence to the main suit.
  3. Whether the fact that the respondent was a foreign resident with no assets in Uganda constituted a special circumstance warranting security for costs.

Orders

  • The Respondent Silverius Wekesa shall deposit in Court a sum of UGX 30,000,000 (Thirty Million Uganda Shillings only) being security for costs in Civil Suit HCT-25-LD-CS-0040-2024.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Discretionary Power of Court
The High Court possesses inherent power under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and specific power under Order 26 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules to order a plaintiff to give security for payment of costs incurred by any defendant, which discretion must be exercised judiciously taking into account the nature, purpose and circumstances of the case.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Factors for Consideration
In determining whether to grant security for costs, the court must consider whether the applicant is likely to succeed in the substantive case and whether the plaintiff is resident in the jurisdiction with assets against which costs may be enforced, assessing the merits of both parties' cases based on pleadings and affidavits filed.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Foreign Plaintiff Without Local Assets
It is a special circumstance warranting an order for security for costs where the plaintiff is a foreign resident who possesses no assets within the Ugandan jurisdiction, particularly where the defendants have demonstrated prima facie defences to the claim including limitation and wrong party defences.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (9)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Agaba & Another v Wekesa (Miscellaneous Application 13 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1102 (10 December 2024)
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.