Wakilii

Harriet Nattu Mukasa and Another v Serunjogi Isaac and Others (Miscellaneous Application 68 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 374 · 2025 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. HCT-17-LD-CS-0053-2024
Decision
Security for costs ordered; respondents must pay UGX 6,000,000 each within 60 days

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 an affidavit in reply filed out of time should not be struck off where no prejudice is demonstrated, as procedural rules serve justice rather than defeat it. The court found the underlying suit appeared frivolous and vexatious on its face, with no clear evidence linking the property claimed by the respondents to the land possessed by the applicants for over 20 years. Security for costs was granted at UGX 6,000,000 per respondent, payable within 60 days.

Outcome

Security for costs ordered; respondents must pay UGX 6,000,000 each within 60 days

Facts

The applicants, husband and wife, entered the suit land as tenants in January 2009 under a tenancy agreement with the then owner Joash Mayanja Nkanji. In June 2016, the first applicant purchased the land and became registered proprietor of Bulemezi Block 835 Plot 19 at Kayonga. The land had been originally owned by Eriya Kasujju, who sold it to Livingstone Mukasa in 1979 under instrument no. 434480. Mukasa then sold to Mayanja Nkanji before the applicants' purchase. The applicants developed and occupied the land unchallenged for over 20 years. In July 2024, the respondents sued claiming to be beneficiaries of Eriya Kasujju's estate, alleging the land comprised in MRV 291 Folio 11 was fraudulently converted into Block 835 Plot 19. The applicants filed this application seeking security for costs, arguing the suit was frivolous and vexatious.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents' affidavit in reply was filed in time
  2. Whether there are sufficient grounds for an order of security for costs against the respondents
  3. What are the available remedies?

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • First, second and third respondents ordered to furnish security of UGX 6,000,000 (Six Million Uganda Shillings) each within 60 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Filing Out of Time — Effect
An affidavit in reply, being evidence rather than a pleading in the strict sense, should be filed and served within a reasonable time before the hearing date to allow the adverse party a fair opportunity to respond. Where filed late but without demonstrated prejudice, the affidavit should not be struck off; rather, the party responsible should be penalised in costs for any consequential adjournment. Rules of procedure are handmaids of justice, not tools to defeat it.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Grounds for Grant
Under Order 26 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may order a plaintiff to give security for costs where: (a) the applicant is being put to undue expenses by defending a frivolous and vexatious suit, and (b) the applicant has a good defence to the suit which is likely to succeed.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Frivolous and Vexatious Suits
A suit may be deemed frivolous and vexatious where the facts in issue appear unfounded on any evidence, where the plaintiff fails to demonstrate a plausible cause of action or interest in the property claimed, and where no evidence is adduced to prove the identity of the property claimed with the property in the defendant's possession.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Lam-Lagoro v Muni University (Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 0007 of 2016)
  • Namboro & Fabiana Waburo v Henry Kaala [1975] HCB 315

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Harriet Nattu Mukasa and Another v Serunjogi Isaac and Others (Miscellaneous Application 68 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 374 (4 June 2025)
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.