Magandaazi v Millard (Miscellaneous Application 249 of 2025)
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 dismissed the application for security for costs. The applicant failed to establish that the respondent's suit was frivolous or vexatious, as the pleadings disclosed a prima facie case of fraudulent expropriation of company property by a director. The respondent's foreign residence and lack of property in Uganda, without proof of impecuniosity or bad faith, were insufficient grounds to order security for costs, particularly where the applicant's own conduct allegedly contributed to the dispute.
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed with costs to the respondent
Facts
The applicant, Magandaazi Denis, applied for an order requiring the respondent, Monica Millard, to furnish security for costs of UGX 30,000,000 before the hearing of the main suit (HCCS No. 1133 of 2024). The main suit concerned land comprised in Block 423 Plot 642, which had been subdivided into multiple plots registered in the applicant's name. The applicant argued that the respondent was a foreigner with no known property in Uganda, making enforcement of a costs order difficult if she lost. He further contended that the suit was frivolous and vexatious because the suit land no longer existed as described, the first defendant company had been struck off the register, and the company was allegedly a foreign entity prohibited from owning mailo land. The respondent countered that she held 50% of shares in the first defendant company (with the remaining 50% held by Ugandan citizens), that the company had been reinstated, that her claim was based on proprietary rights arising from fraudulent expropriation of company property by the applicant as director, and that she was financially sound with assets in the United States against which any judgment could be enforced.
Issues
- Whether there are sufficient grounds for granting an order for security for costs against a plaintiff who is a foreign national with no known property in Uganda.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (7)
- G.M. Combined (U) Ltd v A.K Detergents Ltd [1997] HCB 40
- Anthony Namboro & Fabiano Waburoko v Henry Kaala [1975] HCB 324
- R v Ajit Singh s/o Vir Singh (1957) EA 822
- Salim Jamal & 2 Others v Uganda Oxygen Limited and Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1995)
- Peter Katutsi v Sulaiman Mukasa & Sons Limited and Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 268 of 2021)
- Speke Hotel 1996 Limited v Shiela Nadege (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2022)
- Gateway Land Pte Ltd v Turner (East Asia) Pte Ltd [1987] SLR (R) 746
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.