Wakilii

Corncop International Ltd v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (Civil Reference Appeal No. 182 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2020] UGCA 156 · 2020 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to the full bench of the Court of Appeal from the decision of a single Justice ordering security for costs, heard together with an application to strike out a pending 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 a 30-day extension 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 full bench dismissed a reference challenging a single Justice's order requiring the applicant company, a foreign entity in receivership with no known assets in Uganda, to deposit UGX 629,920,569 as security for past taxed costs. The Court found no error in the exercise of discretion, holding that an order for security must balance enforceability of any costs award against not stifling a meritorious appeal. There was no evidence the respondent caused the applicant's receivership. The Court also declined to strike out the pending appeal, instead granting 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 a 30-day extension to deposit security failing which the appeal stands struck out.

Facts

The applicant company had sued the respondent in the High Court (HCCS No. 318 of 2001) claiming over US$5,000,000 under a building contract. The suit was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to refund US$2,024,442 to the Government of Uganda as an overpayment, together with taxed costs of UGX 626,920,569. The applicant appealed (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2016). The respondent then applied for security for costs (Civil Application No. 88 of 2016). A single Justice partly allowed that application, ordering the applicant to deposit UGX 629,920,569 as security for past taxed costs but declining further security for future costs. The applicant referred that ruling to the full bench (Civil Reference No. 182 of 2016), contending the order would stifle its meritorious appeal as it was a company in receivership. The respondent separately applied to strike out the appeal for non-deposit (Civil Application No. 366 of 2018). The applicant company was a foreign entity with no known assets or economic activity in Uganda.

Issues

  1. Whether the Reference was filed out of time under Rule 55(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. Whether the single Justice erred in the exercise of his discretion in ordering the applicant to deposit security for past (taxed) costs.
  3. Whether Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2016 should be struck out for failure to deposit the ordered security for costs within the stipulated time.

Orders

  • Civil Reference No. 182 of 2016 is dismissed and the orders of the single Justice in Civil Application No. 88 of 2016 are upheld.
  • Civil Application No. 366 of 2018 to strike out Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2016 is disallowed; the appeal remains on the Register subject to compliance.
  • The applicant is ordered to deposit UGX 629,920,569/= as security for costs within thirty days from the date of this Ruling.
  • In default of full deposit within thirty days, Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2016 shall automatically stand struck out with costs unless the Court orders otherwise.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs in each cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Court of Appeal — References from a Single Justice — Time Limits under Rule 55(1)(b)
A reference from a decision of a single Justice in a civil matter is filed in time where the applicant writes to the registrar within seven days of the decision; subsequent filing of elaborated grounds out of time does not render the reference time-barred where the initiating letter was authentic and timely.
References — Standard of Review of a Single Justice's Discretion
On a reference, the full Court sits akin to a first appellate court and re-appraises all the materials before the single Justice, but will not interfere with the exercise of discretion unless the single Justice acted on a wrong principle.
Security for Costs — Discretionary Grant — Balancing Enforceability against Stifling an Appeal
An order for security for costs is discretionary and requires a balancing act: security may be ordered where there is reason to believe a successful party would have real difficulty enforcing a costs award, but an order must not stifle an appellant's meritorious appeal.
Security for Costs against an Impecunious or Foreign Company in Receivership
Security for costs may properly be ordered against a foreign company in receivership with no known assets or economic activity within the jurisdiction, particularly where there is no evidence that the opposing party caused the company's financial difficulties.
Striking Out an Appeal for Non-Deposit of Security — Extension of Time
A court may decline to strike out an appeal for failure to deposit ordered security where the appellant has been actively pursuing related proceedings concerning that very security, and may instead grant a further extension of time to make the deposit.

Legislation cited (7)

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] QB1 611

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Corncop International Ltd v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (Civil Reference Appeal No. 182 of 2016) [2020] UGCA 156 (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.