Wakilii

Kakooza and Another v Kasaala co-operative Society Ltd (Civil Application 13 of 2011)

Supreme Court · [2012] UGSC 19 · 2012 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for security for past costs and further security for costs in a pending civil appeal
Decision
Application for security for past and further costs dismissed with no order as to costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 6 (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 6 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 5 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. 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 single judge dismissed the application for security for past costs and further security for costs. Mere non-payment of taxed costs is not enough; the applicant must show a failure of execution or some other concrete step, or an admission of inability to pay. Security for past costs is not a substitute for execution and the application was premature. The Registrar's letter did not prove the respondent had no assets, and members of a co-operative society remain liable for its debts. The applicants also delayed about a year in applying and failed to show the respondent's appeal lacked a likelihood of success. The affidavit in reply was not struck out.

Outcome

Application for security for past and further costs dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The applicants agreed to buy about 1,000 hectares of land at Nampiki, Luwero from the respondent co-operative society for Shs 34 million. They paid Shs 14,300,000 and withheld the balance, alleging the society had sold one square mile of the land to a third party. The trial judge found for the society, holding the applicants had failed to pay the full price and acquiesced in the sale. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the applicants did not acquiesce and that the society had fraudulently sold the square mile. The society appealed to the Supreme Court. Pending that appeal, the applicants sought security for past costs (totalling about Shs 53,418,000 from earlier proceedings) and further security of about Shs 20,000,000, contending the society had no known assets and its appeal had no likelihood of success.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's affidavit in reply should be struck out as argumentative or rejected for containing a falsehood as to the deponent's sex.
  2. Whether the applicants established grounds under rule 101(3) of the Supreme Court Rules for an order that the respondent furnish security for past costs and further security for costs of the pending appeal.
  3. Whether the application was made without undue delay.
  4. Whether the respondent's appeal had no likelihood of success.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs, the respondent being unrepresented.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Discretion under Supreme Court Rules rule 101(3)
Under rule 101(3) of the Supreme Court Rules the court has a discretion, exercisable at any time, to direct that further security for costs or security for past costs be given, and as the rule gives no guidance on how the discretion is exercised, guidance is drawn from decided cases.
Civil Procedure — Security for Past Costs — Non-payment of taxed costs insufficient
Mere non-payment of taxed and awarded costs is not by itself sufficient to justify an order for security for past costs; there must be a failure of execution or some other step showing the party cannot pay, or an admission on its part.
Civil Procedure — Security for Past Costs — Not a substitute for execution
Security for past costs under rule 101(3) of the Supreme Court Rules is not intended to be a substitute for or an alternative to execution, and an application is premature where the applicant has not first taken adequate steps to recover the costs through execution.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Burden of proof on applicant
The burden lies on the applicant for an order for further security to show cause why that relief should be granted; merely averring that the security already deposited is inadequate, or that costs ordered below remain unpaid, imposes no obligation on the court to grant the application.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Delay as a material consideration
Although rule 101(3) allows an application to be made at any time, lateness in applying for security is a material consideration against the applicant, and the onus is on the applicant to show that the delay was not prejudicial to the respondent.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Prospects of success of the appeal
A determining factor in an application for security for costs is the prospect of success of the appeal, assessed on the pleadings, affidavits and material then available; an applicant must show that the respondent's appeal stands little chance of success rather than merely asserting it.
Company Law — Co-operative Societies — Proof of lack of assets and inapplicability of Companies Act s.404
A court cannot infer that a respondent has no assets merely from a Registrar's letter silent on its property; members, past members and estates of deceased members of a registered co-operative society remain liable for its debts, and by section 89(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act section 404 of the Companies Act does not apply to a registered co-operative society.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (9)

  • Goodman Agencies Ltd -Vs- Hasa Agencies SCC Application No. 01 of 2011
  • GM Combined (U) Ltd v AK Detergents (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • Noble Builders (U) Ltd v Jaspal Singh Sandhu (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2002)
  • Noormohamed Abdulla v Ronchhodbhai J. Patel and Another [1962] E.A. 462
  • Lalji Gangji v Nathoo Vassanjee [1960] E.A. 315
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Multi-Constructors Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1994)
  • Namboro v Kaala [1975] HCB 315
  • Premchand v Quarry Services Ltd [1971] E.A. 162
  • [Lord Denning M.R. decision on the equivalent of Section 404 of the Companies Act — case name garbled by OCR]

Cases citing this judgment (6)

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.

Kakooza and Another v Kasaala co-operative Society Ltd (Civil Application 13 of 2011) [2012] UGSC 19 (13 January 2012)
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.