Wakilii

Electoral Commission & Anor v Mayega (HCT-00-CV-MA-0226 OF 2009)

High Court · [2009] UGHCCD 5 · 2009 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for security for costs under Order 26 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, in defence of a Judicial Review application challenging the appointment of the 2nd applicant
Decision
Application for security for costs dismissed; main Judicial Review application may proceed to scheduling

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

Held that the court has unfettered discretion to order security for costs under Order 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules. In exercising that discretion, the court must consider the nature of the main application. Where the main suit raises triable issues of great public interest by way of Judicial Review, and the respondent has a right to challenge decisions of public bodies, the application should not be stifled by lack of means. Application for security for costs dismissed.

Outcome

Application for security for costs dismissed; main Judicial Review application may proceed to scheduling

Facts

The respondent filed a Judicial Review application (Miscellaneous Cause 223 of 2009) challenging the 2004 appointment and subsequent reappointment of the 2nd applicant by the Electoral Commission on grounds that he lacked requisite qualifications and his appointment violated the Constitution and the Electoral Commission Act. The respondent also filed an application for a temporary injunction (Misc. Application 606 of 2009) to halt the reappointment until final disposal. Before the injunction hearing, the applicants filed this application seeking an order that the respondent furnish security for costs, claiming the Judicial Review was frivolous and vexatious, that they had a good defence, and that the respondent lacked means to satisfy costs. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that he raised triable issues of public interest as both a citizen and a presidential aspirant, and that mere poverty was not grounds for ordering security for costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have shown sufficient grounds for the court to order the respondent to furnish security for costs.
  2. Whether the respondent's Judicial Review application is frivolous and vexatious.
  3. Whether the applicants have a good defence to the Judicial Review application.
  4. Whether the respondent has means to satisfy costs if the applicants succeed.

Orders

  • Application for security for costs dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs for this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Discretion of Court
Under Order 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has unfettered discretion to order a plaintiff to give security for costs, and such discretion is exercised in order to do justice between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Factors for Consideration
In applications for security for costs, the court must consider whether the defendant will be put to undue expense by defending a frivolous or vexatious suit, whether the defendant has a good defence and is likely to succeed, and whether there is a triable case. The inability to pay is a secondary consideration after these factors have been addressed.
Judicial Review — Public Interest Litigation — Security for Costs
Where a Judicial Review application raises triable issues of great public interest concerning the legality of appointments to public office, and the applicant has standing as a citizen to challenge decisions of public bodies, the resolution of such concerns should not be stifled by the applicant's apparent lack of means to pay costs.
Judicial Review — Prerogative Orders — Right of Challenge
Prerogative orders are remedies for the control of the exercise of powers by those in public offices, and the remedy is available to give relief where a private person is challenging the conduct of a public authority or public body. A citizen has a right to enquire whether those charged with running public affairs abuse their powers, whether prescribed procedures are followed, and whether decisions are taken in accordance with law.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • GM Combined (U) Ltd v AK Detergents (U) Ltd (SCCA 34 of 1999)
  • Jubilee Insurance Co v Krediet Jeneve Inc (HCMA 338 of 2001)
  • Anthony Namboro and Another v Henry Kaala [1975] HCB 315
  • Kikungwe Issa and Others v Stanbic Bank (HCMA 0394 of 2004 and HCMA 0395 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Electoral Commission & Anor Vs Mayega (HCT-00-CV-MA-0226 OF 2009) [2009] UGHCCD 5 (17 December 2009)
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.