Wakilii

Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application 20 of 1998)

Supreme Court · [1999] UGSC 33 · 1999 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by the appeal respondent (Bank of Uganda) for an order that the appellant give security for costs of a pending Supreme Court appeal and for past costs in the courts below, under rule 100(3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Decision
Application granted; respondent ordered to deposit shs.40 million as security for costs within 45 days before the appeal is heard.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 under rule 100(3) of the Supreme Court Rules, the Court held that an appellant resident abroad with no assets in Uganda may be ordered to give security for costs, and that the appellant's earlier deposit of security in the High Court was not the kind of asset (chattels, real property, or business goods) that defeats such an order. Bills of costs need not be taxed before security is ordered; quantum may be reasonably estimated. As there was no delay in applying, the imminence of the hearing was not prejudicial. The Court ordered the respondent to deposit shs.40 million (shs.20 million for Court of Appeal costs and shs.20 million for future Supreme Court costs) within 45 days.

Outcome

Application granted; respondent ordered to deposit shs.40 million as security for costs within 45 days before the appeal is heard.

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant and the Uganda Government in the High Court for repayment of a US$1 million loan that the applicant had guaranteed. The High Court overruled the applicant's limitation objection and ordered the suit against it to proceed. On the applicant's application, the respondent was ordered to deposit shs.20 million as security for costs; when it failed to comply, the suit was dismissed, then reinstated on the respondent's application with a fresh order to deposit shs.20 million, which the respondent paid. The applicant appealed the reinstatement to the Court of Appeal, which set the reinstatement aside. The respondent appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. The respondent is a foreign corporation, and the applicant's affidavit stated, uncontroverted, that it had no assets in Uganda. With the appeal set to be heard within thirteen days, the applicant applied for security for costs of the appeal and for past costs in the courts below.

Issues

  1. Whether an order for security for costs should be made against a foreign appellant with no assets within the jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the deposit of security for costs in a lower court constitutes an asset within the jurisdiction sufficient to defeat an order for security.
  3. Whether bills of costs must be taxed before an order for security for past or future costs may be made.
  4. Whether the proximity of the appeal hearing date renders an order for security for costs prejudicial to the respondent.
  5. What quantum of security for costs would be just in the circumstances.

Orders

  • Application for security for costs granted.
  • Respondent to deposit shs.40 million in Court as security for costs — shs.20 million for costs in the Court of Appeal and shs.20 million for future costs in the Supreme Court.
  • Security to be deposited within 45 days from the date of the ruling and before the appeal is heard.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Foreign Appellant Without Local Assets
An appellant resident abroad with no assets within the jurisdiction may be ordered to give security for costs, the foreign residence raising a prima facie case unless the appellant holds goods or chattels within the jurisdiction sufficient to answer the other party's claim.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Nature of Qualifying Assets
Money already deposited in a lower court as security for costs is not the kind of asset (chattels, real property, or trade or business goods) within the jurisdiction that defeats an order for security, and such a deposit is relevant only to costs in that court.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Untaxed Bills of Costs
Bills of costs need not be taxed before an order for security for costs is made; under rule 100(3) the court may order security at any time, and the quantum may be a reasonable, honest estimate by the applying party rather than costs actually incurred.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Delay and Timing of Application
Where the applicant has acted expeditiously and there has been no delay in applying for security for costs, the proximity of the appeal hearing date does not render an order prejudicial to the respondent.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Discretion, Quantum and Likelihood of Success
Security for costs must be such as the court considers just in all the circumstances and must not be used oppressively to stifle a genuine appeal; a party resisting security on the ground that its appeal will succeed must show more than a bare assertion that the decision appealed from was unjust.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.100(3)
  • Supreme Court Rules 1996 Third Schedule para.9(2)

Cases cited (13)

  • Farab Incorporated v Brian John Robson (1957) EA 441
  • Vallabhadas Hirji Kapadia v Thakersay Laximidas (1960) EA 852
  • Atul Kumar Sumantbhai Patel v American Express Banking Corporation (Civil Application No. 9 of 1989)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Service of East Africa Ltd & Others (1971) EA 172
  • Lalji v Nathoo Yassamjee (1960) EA 315
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Multi Constructions Ltd (Civil Application No. 20 of 1994)
  • Transroad Ltd v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1995)
  • Re Apollinaris Company's Trade Marks (1891) 2 Ch 1
  • G.M. Combined (U) Ltd v A.K. Detergents (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
  • Procon (GB) Ltd v Provincial Building Co Ltd (1984) 2 All ER 368
  • Pearson & Another v Naydler and others (1977) 3 All ER 513
  • Noormohamed Abdalla v Rachholdbhai J. Patel & Anor (1962) EA 116
  • Lalji v Nathoo Yassamjee (1960) EA 147

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application 20 of 1998) [1999] UGSC 33 (22 January 1999)
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.