Wakilii

Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Esponal (Civil Appeal 23 of 1998)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 36 · 1998 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court order reinstating a suit that had been dismissed for failure to deposit security for costs
Decision
Appeal allowed; reinstatement order set aside and the suit dismissed with costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (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 5 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations fading — 6 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.
Judicial journey

Appeal & case history

2 linked decisions

Follow this matter from the decision below through each appellate court.

Court of Appeal This decision
Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Esponal (Civil Appeal 23 of 1998) [1998] UGCA 36 (1 December 1998)
[1998] UGCA 36
Reversed The decision below was overturned.
See the court’s words
“plaintiffs lack of funds, but a judge of the trial court had on that account set aside the dismissal.”
Supreme Court decision located in the Wakilii corpus. Linked from court records and operative language in the judgments.

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 Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the respondent failed to establish sufficient cause for not depositing the court-ordered cash security for costs within the prescribed time. Tendering a guarantee instead of the ordered cash deposit was contrary to the court order and did not constitute sufficient cause. The alleged bureaucratic procedures and delays in international money transfers were unproven and an afterthought. The trial judge erred in reinstating the suit. The Court also held the appellant should have been awarded costs in the lower court as the successful party. The order of reinstatement was set aside and the suit dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; reinstatement order set aside and the suit dismissed with costs

Facts

The respondent bank sued the Attorney-General and the appellant bank in the High Court seeking repayment of a US$1 million loan advanced to the Government of Uganda in 1987 to purchase railway wagons, which the appellant had guaranteed. The Attorney-General succeeded on a limitation objection, but the objection was rejected as against the appellant guarantor. The appellant obtained an order requiring the respondent to deposit Shs.20 million as security for costs within 30 days. The respondent instead tendered a guarantee in place of cash, which the Registrar rejected. As the cash security was not deposited, the suit was dismissed under Order 23 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The respondent applied under Order 23 Rule 2(2) for reinstatement, asserting that bureaucratic procedures and delays in international money transfers prevented timely payment, and that counsel mistakenly believed a guarantee would suffice. The trial judge reinstated the suit, prompting this appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent established sufficient cause for failure to furnish security for costs within the time allowed, justifying reinstatement of the suit under Order 23 Rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to award costs of the application to the appellant as the successful party.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment and order of the lower court reinstating the suit set aside.
  • An order substituted dismissing the suit.
  • Costs awarded to the appellant here and in the lower court.

Rules and key headnotes

Security for Costs — Reinstatement of Dismissed Suit — Sufficient Cause under Order 23 Rule 2(2)
A party seeking reinstatement of a suit dismissed for non-payment of security for costs must establish sufficient cause for the failure to deposit the security within the time allowed; failure to do so is fatal to the application for reinstatement.
Security for Costs — Compliance with Court Order — Cash Deposit
Where the court orders a cash deposit as security for costs, tendering a guarantee in place of cash does not comply with the order and cannot constitute sufficient cause for reinstating a suit dismissed for non-deposit.
Sufficient Cause — Burden of Proof — Unproven Bureaucratic Delays
Alleged bureaucratic procedures and delays in international money transfers must be proved; bare unestablished assertions of such delays do not amount to sufficient cause and may be treated as an afterthought.
Costs — Discretion of Court — Costs Follow the Event
Costs are in the discretion of the court but normally follow the event; the successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs unless the court otherwise directs, and a failure to award costs to the successful party may be corrected on appeal.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Farrab Inc. versus Pircea [1956] E.A. 441
  • Bank of Baroda v Panessar & Another (1987) ch. 335
  • Patrick Njoroge Nguai v Livingstone Wanjii Muthui (1955) Vol. XXII EACA 43
  • Shabir Din vs. Ram Parkash Aradin (1955) Vol. XXII EACA 48
  • UNIDROM versus M/s Kawesi & Co., C.S. No. 878/90

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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 Esponal (Civil Appeal 23 of 1998) [1998] UGCA 36 (1 December 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.