Wakilii

Concorp International Ltd v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (Civil Application No. 366 of 2018; Civil Reference No. 182 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 2183 · 2020 Reference Dismissed; Strike-Out Application Disallowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil reference to the full bench against a single Justice's order for security for costs, heard together with an application to strike out a pending civil appeal for non-deposit of security
Decision
Reference dismissed and single Justice's security-for-costs order upheld; application to strike out the appeal disallowed, with the applicant granted 30 days to deposit security failing which the appeal stands struck out

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 Court overruled a preliminary objection that the reference was time-barred, finding a letter to the Registrar was filed within seven days. On the merits, the Court declined to interfere with the single Justice's exercise of discretion ordering the applicant company, a foreign entity in receivership with no known assets, to deposit UGX 629,920,569 as security for the taxed past costs. It declined to order further security for future costs to avoid stifling the appeal. The application to strike out the pending Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2016 was disallowed, with the applicant given a fresh 30-day extension to deposit the security, failing which the appeal would automatically stand struck out with costs.

Outcome

Reference dismissed and single Justice's security-for-costs order upheld; application to strike out the appeal disallowed, with the applicant granted 30 days to deposit security failing which the appeal stands struck out

Facts

The applicant company had sued the respondent in the High Court Commercial Division (HCCS No. 318 of 2001) demanding payment of over USD 5,000,000 arising from a building contract. The suit was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to refund USD 2,024,442 to the Government of Uganda as an excess payment, plus taxed costs of UGX 629,920,569. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2016). The respondent applied (Civil Application No. 88 of 2016) for security for costs. A single Justice partly allowed the application, ordering the applicant to deposit UGX 629,920,569 as security for past taxed costs within thirty days, but declining further security for future costs. The applicant, a foreign company in receivership with no known income or assets, sought a reference to the full bench. After the deposit was not made, the respondent applied to strike out the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the civil reference was filed out of time under Rule 55(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. Whether the single Justice erred in ordering the applicant company to deposit security for the taxed past costs.
  3. Whether the Court should order further security for future costs in the pending appeal.
  4. Whether Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2016 should be struck out for failure to deposit the ordered security for costs within time.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection that the reference was filed out of time overruled.
  • Civil Reference No. 182 of 2016 dismissed and the single Justice's orders in Civil Application No. 88 of 2016 upheld.
  • Civil Application No. 366 of 2018 disallowed; Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2016 to remain on the Register subject to compliance.
  • Applicant ordered to deposit UGX 629,920,569 as security for costs within thirty days from the date of the Ruling.
  • On failure to deposit within thirty days, Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2016 to automatically stand struck out with costs.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the reference and the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — References from a Single Justice — Time Limit Under Rule 55(1)(b)
A reference from a decision of a single Judge in a civil matter is filed in time where the dissatisfied party writes to the Registrar within seven days of the decision; subsequent filing of elaborated grounds does not render the reference out of time.
Civil Procedure — Reference Against Exercise of Discretion — Standard of Review
The full Court hearing a reference acts as a first appellate court re-appraising the materials before the single Justice, but will not interfere with the single Justice's exercise of discretion unless he acted on a wrong principle.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Impecunious or Foreign Plaintiff
Security for costs may be ordered where there is reason to believe a foreign or impecunious litigant will be unable to satisfy a costs award, but the Court must balance this against the risk of stifling a bona fide appeal with reasonable prospects of success.
Civil Procedure — Security for Future Costs — Rule 105(3) Discretion
The Court has discretion under Rule 105(3) to order further security for past or future costs, but should decline to order security for future undetermined costs where doing so would stifle a pending appeal.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Appeal for Non-Deposit of Security — Court's Discretion
The Court may decline to strike out an appeal for failure to deposit ordered security where the appellant has been actively pursuing related applications, and may instead grant an extension of time to make the deposit failing which the appeal stands automatically struck out.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.55(1)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.105(3)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.30(1)(a)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.212
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.44
  • Judicature Act s.12(2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Noble Builders (U) Ltd and Another v Jabal Singh Sandhu (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004)
  • De Bry Vs Fitzgerald and Another (1990) 1 ALLER 560
  • Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co. Ltd Vs Triplan Ltd [1973] QB 611 at page 626

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Concorp International Ltd v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (Civil Application No. 366 of 2018; Civil Reference No. 182 of 2016) [2020] UGCA 2183 (21 December 2020)
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.