Wakilii

Dependable Outcomes Limited v Ibrahim Kunobwa and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application 511 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 238 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for security for costs arising from Civil Suit No. 525 of 2025
Decision
Application for security for costs granted; respondents ordered to furnish security of UGX 30,000,000 within two months or provide bank guarantee within one month

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 High Court Land Division granted the applicant's application for security for costs. The court held that respondents' claims were frivolous and vexatious, given their history of filing and abandoning multiple suits against the applicant. The court found that while impecuniosity alone is not grounds for ordering security, the combination of frivolous litigation history and respondents' uncertain ability to satisfy costs justified the order. Respondents were ordered to furnish security of UGX 30,000,000 within two months or provide a bank guarantee within one month.

Outcome

Application for security for costs granted; respondents ordered to furnish security of UGX 30,000,000 within two months or provide bank guarantee within one month

Facts

The applicant (2nd defendant in Civil Suit No. 525 of 2025) sought security for costs from the respondents (plaintiffs in the main suit). The parties were engaged in a land dispute concerning property allegedly forming part of the estate of the late Zakariya Mubi Musitwa. The applicant alleged that respondents had a history of filing and abandoning suits: Civil Suit No. 149 of 2014 was dismissed for want of prosecution; High Court Civil Appeal No. 037 of 2020 was decided in applicant's favour with costs awarded but unpaid by respondents. The applicant claimed respondents jointly filed multiple frivolous suits (High Court No. 041 of 2024 and Miscellaneous Applications No. 1120 and 1119 of 2024) and that the suit land had already been sold and no longer formed part of the estate. The 1st respondent allegedly dodged court process with warrants of arrest issued. The 6th respondent allegedly apologized for lodging a petition to State House without justifiable cause. Respondents countered that they had properties including co-owned land valued at UGX 6,303,640,000 at Munyonyo, that the 1st respondent had been paying the costs from Appeal No. 37 of 2020 with only UGX 650,000 outstanding, and that their main suit disclosed a prima facie case.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for a grant of an application for security for costs to the applicant/defendant against the respondent/plaintiff.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Respondent/plaintiff to furnish security for costs of UGX 30,000,000 within two months from the date of this order.
  • Alternatively, the respondent/plaintiff may provide a bank guarantee or a bond within one month.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Security for Costs — Frivolous and Vexatious Litigation — Assessment of Prima Facie Case
When determining an application for security for costs, the court must consider the prima facie case of both plaintiff and defendant based on pleadings, affidavits filed in support or opposition, and any other material available, without conducting a detailed examination on merits unless issues are clear.
Security for Costs — Frivolous and Vexatious Suits — Definition and Application
A frivolous and vexatious suit is one that is paltry, trumpery, not worthy of serious attention, and having no reasonable ground or purpose. A history of filing multiple suits and abandoning them, combined with claims concerning property allegedly already disposed of, may render subsequent claims frivolous and vexatious warranting an order for security for costs.
Security for Costs — Impecuniosity — Not Sole Basis for Order
Impecuniosity of the plaintiff is not a basis on which a court would order security for costs, as such an order would prevent access to justice because of a party's pecuniary position. Poverty must not be a bar to litigation.
Security for Costs — Co-Ownership — Insufficient Security
Co-ownership of property does not give absolute rights to that property and requires permission of the other co-owner for dealing with the land. Mere assertion of co-ownership, without evidence of consent from the co-owner, is insufficient to demonstrate ability to satisfy costs.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (5)

  • Namboro and Another v Henry Kaala (Civil Suit No. 553 of 1975)
  • G.M. Combined (U) Ltd v A.K. Detergents (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • R v Ajit Singh s/o Vir Singh [1957] EA 822
  • G.M. Combined (U) Ltd v A.K. Detergents (U) Ltd [1992] 2 EA 94
  • Cateway Land Pte Ltd v Turner (East Asia) Pte Ltd [1987] SLR (R) 746

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dependable Outcomes Limited v Ibrahim Kunobwa and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application 511 of 2026) [2026] UGHCLD 238 (23 June 2026)
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.