Wakilii

Makubuya Enock Willy T/A Pollaplast v Songdoh Films (U) Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No.321 of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 245 · 2018 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for security for appearance and attachment before judgment arising from civil suit for breach of tenancy agreement
Decision
Security for appearance ordered; main suit to proceed to disposal

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 held that where a defendant is a foreign national who may leave the jurisdiction and has not adequately demonstrated capacity to satisfy a potential decree, the court may in exercise of its discretion under Section 64(a) of the Civil Procedure Act order the defendant to furnish security to prevent the ends of justice being defeated. The court ordered the respondents to furnish security of UGX 100,000,000 within one month, rejecting the preliminary objection that the claim fell outside Order 40's scope.

Outcome

Security for appearance ordered; main suit to proceed to disposal

Facts

The applicant, a tenant trading as Pollaplast, filed a civil suit against the respondents (a Ugandan company and its Korean director) claiming damages for breach of tenancy agreement and unlawful detention of products. The applicant sought an order requiring the 2nd respondent (a foreign national) to furnish security, alleging he was about to leave Uganda and had disposed of machines that formed the subject of the dispute. The applicant claimed the respondents lacked capacity to satisfy a potential decree. The respondents opposed, stating they owned assets worth billions in Uganda, had not sold any assets, and the applicant's claim was speculative. The 2nd respondent's status and the company's ownership structure were not disclosed in their affidavit.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for arrest and attachment before judgment fell within the exceptions under Section 12 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. Whether the applicant established grounds for requiring the respondents to furnish security for appearance under Section 64(a) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. Whether the respondents had demonstrated capacity to satisfy a potential decree.

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered to furnish security to court of a value of UGX 100,000,000 (either in form of bank guarantee or property) within one month from 14 September 2018.
  • The main suit shall be disposed of within a period of six months.
  • Application allowed.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Attachment Before Judgment — Power of Court — Requirements
The power under Section 64(a) of the Civil Procedure Act to arrest a defendant and order attachment before judgment is a drastic remedy designed to prevent the ends of justice being defeated and must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection only where the court has reason to believe on adequate material that unless the power is exercised there is real danger the defendant will remove himself or his property from the jurisdiction.
Attachment Before Judgment — Standard of Proof
An attachment before judgment takes away the defendant's power of alienation and such restriction on the exercise of rights of ownership ought not be imposed except upon clear and convincing proof that the order is needed for the protection of the plaintiff, as a defendant is not debarred from dealing with property merely because a suit has been filed.
Security for Appearance — Foreign Defendant — Burden of Proof
Where a defendant is a foreign national who may leave the jurisdiction and fails to adequately demonstrate capacity to satisfy a potential decree by providing sufficient particulars of assets, the court may in exercise of its discretion order the defendant to furnish security for appearance.
Attachment Before Judgment — Scope — Section 12 Civil Procedure Act
An application for attachment before judgment in a claim for breach of tenancy agreement and damages does not fall within the exceptions in Section 12 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is not a determination of right to or interest in immovable property.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (1)

  • Chandrika Prashad Singh v Hira Lal (1924) Pat 312

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.

Makubuya Enock Willy T_A Pollaplast v Songdoh Films (U) Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No.321 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 245 (14 September 2018)
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.