Wakilii

Aloyo v Ogwok (Civil Suit (originating Summons) No. 10 of 2013) [2014] UGHCFD 27

High Court · 2014 Application Granted (Adjournment) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection regarding adjournment request to hear application for security of costs before determining originating summons under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act
Decision
Matter adjourned pending determination of the security for costs application

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

Court held that proceedings under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act constitute a suit to which Order 26 CPR applies, and that costs may be awarded in the court's discretion under section 2(5) of the Act. As security for costs relates to potential costs liability, it was proper to adjourn the originating summons pending determination of the security for costs application.

Outcome

Matter adjourned pending determination of the security for costs application

Facts

The applicant, a British citizen holding dual Ugandan nationality, brought an originating summons under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act seeking to register a UK judgment valued at approximately UGX 3.5 billion. The respondent filed an affidavit in reply and simultaneously brought Miscellaneous Application 86/2014 for security of costs, arguing that the applicant was resident abroad, had not regularised her dual citizenship under Ugandan law, and held no assets in Uganda. At the hearing of the originating summons, respondent's counsel sought an adjournment to allow the security for costs application to be heard first. The applicant opposed, arguing that security for costs was not a pre-condition under the Act, that the application was brought in bad faith, and that she had travelled from the UK for the hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the hearing of the originating summons should be adjourned pending determination of the respondent's application for security of costs.
  2. Whether an application for security of costs is a pre-condition to hearing an application under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act.
  3. Whether proceedings commenced by originating summons constitute a 'suit' to which Order 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies.

Orders

  • Hearing of the originating summons adjourned pending determination of Miscellaneous Application 86/2014 by the Registrar.
  • Costs of the adjournment to be in the cause of the main application.

Rules and key headnotes

Security for Costs — Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments — Whether Applicable to Originating Summons
Proceedings commenced by originating summons under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act constitute a 'suit' within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Act and Civil Procedure Rules, to which Order 26 CPR governing security for costs applies.
Security for Costs — Costs Awards under Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act
Section 2(5) of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act provides that costs of an application to register a judgment are in the court's discretion, and the applicant may be ordered to pay the respondent's costs if registration is refused, thereby justifying an application for security for costs before the substantive hearing.
Adjournment — Proper Case for Adjournment to Determine Interlocutory Application
Where an application for security for costs raises issues that may affect the conduct and costs liability of the substantive proceedings, it is proper to adjourn the hearing of the main application pending determination of the security for costs application, notwithstanding that it has not yet been served or fixed for hearing.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (1)

  • Namboro v Kaala [1975] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Aloyo v Ogwok (Civil Suit (originating Summons) No. 10 of 2013) [2014] UGHCFD 27 (29 April 2014)
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.