Wakilii

Margaret Nakigudde Tebandeke v Fred Nsubuga (Miscellaneous Application 2607 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 416 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for security for costs arising from Civil Appeal No. 0080 of 2024, which itself arose from Civil Suit No. 104 of 2018
Decision
Application for security for costs dismissed with no order as to costs

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 brought by an applicant against a respondent who had appealed a lower court judgment. The court held that the applicant failed to establish that the respondent's appeal was frivolous or vexatious, particularly where the applicant herself had filed a cross-appeal challenging part of the same judgment. The court found that both parties were dissatisfied with the trial magistrate's decision and that it was not prudent to consider only one party's contention regarding security for costs while ignoring the other party's position.

Outcome

Application for security for costs dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 104 of 2018 against the respondent and another party concerning land at Kitende. Judgment was delivered on 17 January 2024 by the Chief Magistrate of Kajjansi, who found the suit property to be family land illegally sold without spousal consent and ordered the respondent to vacate within 90 days and refund UGX 40,000,000. The respondent filed Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2024 challenging the finding that the property was family land and the adequacy of the refund amount, given the church building and offices he had developed on the land. The applicant filed a cross-appeal challenging the refund order and the non-award of damages. The applicant then brought this application seeking security for costs of UGX 50,000,000 from the respondent, alleging he had no known address or assets and that his appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for a grant of an application for security for costs to the Applicant against the Respondent?

Orders

  • Application denied.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Requirements for Grant
For security for costs to issue, the applicant must prove that they are being put to undue expenses by defending a frivolous and vexatious suit, and that they have a good defence with a likelihood of success. Only after these two elements have been considered may factors like inability to pay be taken into account.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings
An appeal is not frivolous or vexatious where the appellant raises substantive grounds that merit interrogation, particularly where the respondent to the appeal has themselves filed a cross-appeal challenging part of the same judgment.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Cross-Appeals
Where both parties are dissatisfied with a trial court's decision and each has appealed therefrom, it is not prudent to consider only one party's contention as to security for costs and ignore the other party.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Filing — Effect of Lack of Registrar's Endorsement
Where the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) provides for electronic filing, the lack of the Registrar's endorsement with a hearing date does not per se invalidate service of an application, as the hearing date can be sought before the judge hearing the application.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (8)

  • Noble Builders (U) Limited & Anor v Jabal Singh Sandhu (Civil Application No. 15 of 2002)
  • Bukaalamye David & Anor v Sensuwa Hanny (Miscellaneous Application No. 3868 of 2023)
  • Speke Hotel 1996 Limited v Sheila Nadege (Miscellaneous Application No. 456 of 2022)
  • G.M. Combined (U) Ltd v A.K. Detergents (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • Formular Feeds Limited v KCB Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • De Bry v Fitzgerald and Anor [1990] 1 All ER 560
  • Goodman Agencies v Hasa Agencies (K) Ltd (Civil Reference No. 1 of 2011)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Margaret_Nakigudde_Tebandeke_v_Fred_Nsubuga_(Miscellaneous_Application_2607_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_416_(24_June_2025)
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.