Wakilii

Galukande v Kibirige & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 261 of 2018)

High Court · [2020] UGHCFD 8 · 2020 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 concerning estate administration
Decision
Security for costs ordered; failure to comply will result in dismissal of the underlying suit

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 granted the application for security for costs, finding that the applicant was being put to undue expenses defending a frivolous and vexatious suit. The first respondent, having been convicted of forging letters of administration relating to the estate in question, came to court with unclean hands. The court also found that the first respondent had failed to pay previously taxed costs and was unlikely to pay costs of the main suit if unsuccessful.

Outcome

Security for costs ordered; failure to comply will result in dismissal of the underlying suit

Facts

The applicant was the administrator of an estate appointed by the High Court. The first respondent had been convicted by the Masaka Chief Magistrate's Court of forging letters of administration in respect of the same estate. The respondents filed a civil suit (Civil Suit No. 62 of 2016) against the applicant concerning the estate of the late Michael Naluswa Kasule. The applicant sought an order requiring the respondents to furnish security for costs, arguing that the respondents were elderly, had no known sources of income or property, and that the first respondent had failed to pay taxed costs in previous matters. The applicant contended the suit was frivolous and vexatious as none of the respondents was a child of the deceased. The respondents opposed, stating the main issue was whether the deceased left a will naming the first respondent as heir, and that the first respondent owned land valued at approximately 30 million shillings. The first respondent had paid some of the previously taxed costs and was willing to pay the balance.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents should furnish security for costs.

Orders

  • The 1st Respondent is to deposit in this Court Shs 50,000,000/= as security for costs, within 30 days of this order.
  • Should he fail to comply with this order, the suit will be dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Order 26 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Each party will meet the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Security for Costs — Discretion to Order — Factors to Consider
In determining whether to order security for costs under Order 26 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court must consider whether the applicant is being put to undue expenses by defending a frivolous and vexatious suit, whether the applicant has a good defence to the suit, and only after these factors have been considered would factors like inability to pay come into account.
Security for Costs — Poverty Alone Insufficient Ground
Mere poverty of a plaintiff is not by itself a ground for ordering security for costs, as this would deter poor litigants from enforcing their legitimate rights through the legal process.
Estate Administration — Conduct of Litigant — Clean Hands Doctrine
A litigant who has been convicted of forging letters of administration in respect of the estate that is the subject matter of litigation comes to court with unclean hands, having engaged in inequitable behaviour, and the court cannot condone such conduct.
Security for Costs — Purpose and Function
The main purpose of a security for costs order is to alleviate concerns about potential difficulties in seeking to recover costs provided for in any order against the claimant, by requiring the claimant to pay money into court or provide some other form of security as a precondition to continuing with the claim.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Anthony Namboro Fabiano Waburo-Lio v Henry Kaala [1975] HCB 215
  • G.M. Combined (U) Ltd v A.K. Detergents (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Galukande v Kibirige & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 261 of 2018) [2020] UGHCFD 8 (3 July 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.