Wakilii

Mavid Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Royal Group of Pakistan (Civil Application No. 549 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 200 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for further security for costs in a pending appeal
Decision
Application granted; respondent ordered to deposit Shs. 50,000,000 as further security for costs within thirty days

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 single Justice held that the court may, under Rule 105(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, order further security for costs where there is reasonable cause to believe a successful party will be unable to recover its costs. Applying Noble Builders v Jabal Singh Sandhu and De Bry v Fitzgerald, the court found the respondent was a foreign company domiciled in Pakistan with no known address or assets in Uganda, that the company it claimed as its local representative had denied any dealings with it, and that no reciprocal enforcement existed. The application was accordingly granted and the respondent ordered to deposit further security.

Outcome

Application granted; respondent ordered to deposit Shs. 50,000,000 as further security for costs within thirty days

Facts

Judgment in High Court Civil Suit No. 319 of 2009 was entered in favour of the applicant, Mavid Pharmaceuticals Ltd, against the respondent, Royal Group of Pakistan. The respondent appealed (Civil Appeal No. 150 of 2016) and had earlier deposited USD 62,819 as security for due performance of the decree. The applicant sought further security for costs, contending that the respondent was a foreign company domiciled in Karachi, Pakistan, with no known address or assets in Uganda and no reciprocal enforcement arrangement, making recovery of any costs awarded impossible. The respondent claimed it traded in Uganda through a local technical representative, Abacus Pharmaceuticals; however, Abacus, by letter dated 12 March 2020, denied any dealings with or holding of assets for the respondent. The applicant valued the outstanding sums at USD 214,228.40 and Ugx 3,850,938, and the interest on the decree accrued at 20% per annum.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established sufficient cause for an order directing the respondent to furnish further security for the costs of the pending appeal.

Orders

  • The application is granted.
  • The respondent shall deposit in court, within thirty days from the date of the ruling, the sum of Shs. 50,000,000 as further security for costs of the appeal.
  • The applicant is granted the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Discretion to Order Further Security on Appeal
Under Rule 105(3) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) (Rules) Directions, the court may at any time, in its discretion, direct that further security for costs be given where the evidence establishes reasonable cause to believe that a successful party will be unable to recover the costs awarded to it.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Foreign Party Without Local Address or Assets
Where a party is a foreign company domiciled outside the jurisdiction with no known address or assets within Uganda and no reciprocal enforcement of judgment exists, an order for costs against it is likely to be unenforceable, and the opposing party is entitled to security for costs.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Burden of Proof on the Applicant
The burden lies upon the applicant to demonstrate sufficient cause why the opposing party should furnish further security for costs.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • [2004] UGSC 12
  • Mawogola Farmers & Growers Ltd vs Kayanja and others (No1) [97] | I EA 108
  • Kakoza Jonathan and Another v Kasaala Cooperative Society Ltd (SCCA No. 13 of 2011)
  • De Bry v Fitzgerald and Another [1990] 1 All ER 560

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mavid Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Royal Group of Pakistan (Civil Application No. 549 of 2024) [2025] UGCA 200 (27 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.