Wakilii

Kamoomo Samuel and Others v Hamidah Nampiima and Others [2026] UGHC 654

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application by defendants in a pending land suit seeking an order that the plaintiffs furnish security for costs
Decision
Application for security for costs dismissed with costs; main suit (Civil Suit No. 052 of 2025) to proceed to trial

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 struck out the respondents' affidavit in reply because it was filed out of time and leave to file late had never been sought by formal application before the court, a letter to the Deputy Registrar being insufficient; supplementary submissions filed without leave were likewise struck out. Determining the unopposed application on its merits, the court held that security for costs under Order 26 rule 1 requires proof that the applicant is being put to undue expense defending a frivolous and vexatious suit and has a good defence likely to succeed. Both the plaint and the defence raised triable issues, and no evidence of the respondents' inability to pay costs was adduced. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for security for costs dismissed with costs; main suit (Civil Suit No. 052 of 2025) to proceed to trial

Facts

The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 052 of 2025 against the applicants and the Commissioner Land Registration, alleging that the applicants' late father fraudulently procured title to land comprised in former Singo Block 546 Plot 6 (now Plots 18, 20 and 21) by inventing a non-existent owner and colluding with the land registry. The respondents claimed to be children of the late Haruna Senkubuge, to whom the land had been distributed with transfer forms. The applicants, sued as administrators and registered proprietors, denied fraud, asserting lawful purchase in 1995 of 310 acres from beneficiaries of the estate of the late Haruna Senkubuge (including the first and second respondents) and a further 340 acres from another vendor, totalling 650 acres, and continuous occupation exceeding thirty years. The applicants applied for security for costs of UGX 100,000,000, saying the suit was frivolous, vexatious and time-barred, followed earlier unsuccessful petitions to government offices, and that the respondents had disclosed no assets to satisfy a costs order. The respondents' affidavit in reply was filed late; their advocates wrote to the Deputy Registrar citing counsel's ill-health and ECCMIS difficulties, without any formal application for leave or supporting medical evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents' affidavit in reply, filed out of time without leave of court, was competent and could remain on the record.
  2. Whether supplementary written submissions filed without leave of court could be considered.
  3. Whether there were sufficient grounds to order the respondents to furnish security for costs in the pending civil suit.
  4. What remedies were available to the parties.

Orders

  • The applicants' supplementary submissions filed without leave are struck out from the court record.
  • The respondents' affidavit in reply, filed out of time without leave, is struck out.
  • The application for security for costs is dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Conditions for Grant under Order 26 rule 1
An order for security for costs under Order 26 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires the applicant first to establish that it is being put to undue expense in defending a frivolous and vexatious suit and that it has a good defence likely to succeed; only once those two considerations are established may the plaintiff's inability to pay costs be taken into account.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Assessment of Prima Facie Cases Before Trial
In an application for security for costs made before trial, the court assesses the prima facie merits of both parties' cases solely from the pleadings, the affidavits filed for and against the application and any other material then available; where both the plaint and the written statement of defence disclose triable issues, the suit cannot be characterised as frivolous or vexatious.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Impecuniosity and Burden of Proving Inability to Pay
Mere poverty or impecuniosity of a plaintiff is not by itself a ground for ordering security for costs, and an applicant's lack of knowledge of the plaintiff's means is not evidence of inability to pay; the applicant bears the burden of proving that the plaintiff could not satisfy a costs order.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Filing Out of Time Requires Formal Application for Leave
A pleading or affidavit filed outside the prescribed time is incompetent unless leave to file out of time is obtained by formal application to the court; a letter to the Deputy Registrar seeking indulgence, or the Registrar's power to admit documents on the electronic filing system, cannot regularise the late filing, and unsupported assertions such as counsel's ill-health without medical evidence will not attract the court's discretion.
Civil Procedure — Written Submissions — Supplementary Submissions Require Leave
The sequence of written submissions is submissions in chief, reply and rejoinder; any further or supplementary submissions may only be filed with leave of court, and submissions filed without such leave will be struck out from the record.
Civil Procedure — Access to Justice — Prior Administrative Complaints Not a Basis for Security for Costs
A litigant who is dissatisfied with the outcome of complaints or petitions before administrative bodies retains the right to seek redress in court, and cannot be ordered to furnish security for costs merely because it has previously pursued those avenues against the same opponent.
Land & Property — Competing Claims to Registered Title — Allegations of Fraudulent Acquisition Require Full Trial
Where a plaintiff pleads that a registered proprietor obtained title through a fictitious vendor and collusion with the land registry, and the proprietor pleads lawful purchase and long possession, both claims raise triable issues of fact that can only be resolved at a full trial and not on an interlocutory application.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (8)

  • Anthony Namboro and Anor versus Henry Kaala [1975] HCB 315
  • Dr. Medard Bitekyerezo v Nakachwa Florence Obiocha (Miscellaneous Application No. 373 of 2020)
  • G.M. Combined (U) Ltd v A.K. Detergents (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • Speke Hotel 1996 Limited v Sheila Nadege (Miscellaneous Application No. 456 of 2022)
  • R V Ajit Singh s/o Vir Singh [1957] EA 822 at 825
  • Charles Ssekuuma Kiggundu v Ssempijja Muwanga Jonathan (Miscellaneous Application No. 0140 of 2018)
  • Bukaalamye David and Anor v Sensuwa Hanny (Miscellaneous Application No. 3868 of 2023)
  • Bank of Uganda v Joseph Nsereko and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 7 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kamoomo Samuel and Others v Hamidah Nampiima and Others [2026] UGHC 654 (10 June 2026)
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.