Wakilii

Kibibu Engineering Co. Ltd v Kolin Insaat Turizim Sanayi Ticaret (Miscellaneous Application No. 330 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGCOMMC 80 · 2016 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for security for costs arising from arbitration proceedings under s.34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Decision
Application for security for costs dismissed

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 High Court dismissed an application for security for costs under s.34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The applicant argued the respondent was a foreign company with no known assets in Uganda. The court found that the respondent had demonstrated sufficient capacity to satisfy any obligations through registered vehicles and plant in Uganda, showing no intention to leave the jurisdiction.

Outcome

Application for security for costs dismissed

Facts

Kibibu Engineering Co. Ltd applied under s.34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for an order requiring Kolin Insaat Turizim Sanayi Ticaret to provide security for payment of a decretal award in CADER/Arbitration No. 16 of 2016 and costs in opposing Misc Cause No. 4 of 2016. The applicant contended that the respondent was a foreign company with no known assets in Uganda. The respondent maintained it had capacity to satisfy the decree, owning sufficient assets in Uganda including debts, movable assets like vehicles, and construction equipment. Counsel for the respondent supplied certified copies showing a sizeable number of vehicles and plant registered in the respondent's name.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent should be required to provide security for the payment of the arbitral award and costs in opposing Misc Cause No. 4 of 2016

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitration & ADR — Security for Costs — Exercise of Discretion under s.34(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Under s.34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court has discretion to require a party to provide appropriate security for costs where it considers it proper. Courts exercise this discretion where the party against whom the application is made ordinarily resides outside the jurisdiction and has no substantial property within the jurisdiction.
Arbitration & ADR — Security for Costs — Foreign Party with Assets in Jurisdiction
Where a foreign party demonstrates sufficient capacity to meet obligations through registered assets within the jurisdiction and shows no intention of leaving the jurisdiction, an application for security for costs will be dismissed.

Legislation cited (1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kibibu Engineering Co. Ltd v Kolin Insaat Turizim Sanayi Ticaret (Miscellaneous Application No. 330 of 2016) [2016] UGCommC 80 (20 May 2016)
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.