Wakilii

Elahi v Mohamed (C.C. 11-1929.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1929] EACA 49 · 1929 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by defendant for security for costs at first instance
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

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 refused the defendant's application for security for costs. Held that the discretion under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1927 should be exercised in accordance with English practice. The plaintiff's inability to pay debts is not sufficient ground for ordering security for costs at first instance, although it may be sufficient on appeal. Poverty is no bar to a litigant at common law.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

Facts

The defendant applied for an order requiring the plaintiff to give security for costs. The defendant's affidavit stated that the plaintiff was unable to pay his debts and would not be able to pay costs if judgment were given against him. This was the only ground advanced in support of the application. The matter came before the court at first instance.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is entitled to an order requiring the plaintiff to give security for costs on the ground that the plaintiff is unable to pay his debts.

Orders

  • Application for security for costs refused.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Grounds for Ordering — Plaintiff's Poverty
The discretion to order security for costs under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1927 should be exercised in accordance with English practice, whereby poverty is no bar to a litigant and inability to pay debts is not sufficient ground for ordering security for costs at first instance.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Distinction Between First Instance and Appeal
While inability to pay debts may be considered sufficient ground for ordering security for costs on appeal, it is not sufficient at first instance, as the general rule from time immemorial is that poverty is no bar to a litigant.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Civil Procedure Rules 1927 Order 23
  • Civil Procedure Rules 1927 Order 39 r.9

Cases cited (1)

  • Coell v Taylor (1885) 31 Ch D 34

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Elahi v Mohamed (C.C. 11-1929.) [1929] EACA 49 (1 January 1929)
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.