Wakilii

Kuteesa Sam Kahamba v Alice Nambooze Osaga (Miscellaneous Application 85 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 456 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for security for costs arising from a land suit in the High Court Land Division
Decision
Application for security for costs dismissed; underlying land suit to proceed to hearing on the merits

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 High Court dismissed the application for security for costs. The court held that the underlying land suit disclosed a justiciable cause of action based on alleged fraud and was neither frivolous nor vexatious. The Respondent's residence in the United States and lack of local immovable property were insufficient grounds to order security for costs, as poverty or impecuniosity alone cannot bar access to justice. The power to order security for costs must be exercised sparingly to avoid becoming an instrument of oppression.

Outcome

Application for security for costs dismissed; underlying land suit to proceed to hearing on the merits

Facts

The Respondent sued the Applicant and others in the High Court Land Division seeking to be declared the lawful owner of land comprised in Mawogola/MSK 547 Folio 6, Block 83 Plot 520, alleging fraud. The Applicant applied for an order requiring the Respondent to furnish security for costs, arguing that the suit was frivolous and vexatious, that the Respondent was not ordinarily resident in Uganda, had no fixed abode or attachable property within the jurisdiction, and would be unable to pay costs if the suit were dismissed. The Respondent opposed the application, stating that she was resident in the United States in gainful employment, that she lacked a fixed abode in Uganda because the Applicant had unlawfully taken over her residence, and that her suit was credible with high chances of success.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent should be ordered to furnish security for costs in the underlying land suit.
  2. Whether the underlying suit is frivolous, vexatious, or discloses no reasonable cause of action.
  3. Whether the Respondent's residence outside Uganda and alleged lack of attachable property within the jurisdiction constitute sufficient grounds for ordering security for costs.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Discretion of Court — Factors to Consider
The court has discretion under Order 26 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules to order a plaintiff to give security for costs, but this discretion must be exercised sparingly, taking into account all the unique circumstances of the case, to ensure that parties with just claims are not prevented from accessing justice.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Frivolous and Vexatious Suits — Test
It is not sufficient for an applicant to merely allege that a plaintiff's suit is frivolous, vexatious, and discloses no cause of action. It must appear on the face of the suit that the alleged cause of action is one which no reasonable person could properly treat as bona fide and contend that he or she had a grievance entitled to be brought before a court of law.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Residence Outside Jurisdiction — Not Determinative
There is no universal rule that a plaintiff resident abroad will for that reason alone be ordered to give security for costs. The court must consider ease of enforcement of its judgment as a relevant factor, but cannot rely on speculation or conjecture about whether foreign courts may or may not enforce a Ugandan judgment.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Poverty or Impecuniosity — Insufficient Ground
The insolvency or poverty of a plaintiff, or a lack of local immovable property, is not a sufficient ground for imposing an order for security for costs. If paupers are not required to post security, no more onerous burden should be imposed upon a party based merely on lack of local attachable property.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Access to Justice — Constitutional Right
The power to order security for costs must not become an instrument of oppression that bars genuine claims or defences. A party with a justiciable dispute is entitled to have the suit heard and determined on its substantive merits, and the constitutional right to be heard cannot be defeated by an allegation of impecuniosity.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (16)

  • Shah and others v Manurama Ltd and others [2003] 1 EA 294
  • Paul Nyamerere and 3 others v Dison Okumu and 6 others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 35 of 2020)
  • Phillips Katabalwa v Ntege Ssebagala and another [1998] 1 KALR 110
  • UCB v Multi Contractors Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1994)
  • Noble Builders (U) Ltd and Another v Sandu [2004] EA 228
  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga and Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • John Mukasa and another v M/s Srijaya Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 215 of 2004)
  • Norman v Mathew [1916-17] All ER 696
  • Aeronave SPA v Westland Charters Ltd [1971] 3 All ER 531
  • Porzelack KG v Porzelack United Kingdom Limited [1987] 1 All ER 1074
  • Hilton v Guyot 159 US 113 (1895)
  • Christopher Sales and another v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 91 of 2011)
  • Lagon v Hooven Comalco Industries, Inc. 349 SCRA 363
  • Cowell v Taylor [1885] 31 ChD 34
  • Cook v Whellock [1890] 24 QBD 658
  • Rhodes v Dawson [1886] 16 QBD 548

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.

Kuteesa Sam Kahamba v Alice Nambooze Osaga (Miscellaneous Application 85 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 456 (30 April 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.