Wakilii

Minawa Inn Limited v D.A.P.C.B & Another (Civil Suit 97 of 1993)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 72 · 1994 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application by 2nd defendant for security for costs before hearing application to set aside dismissal order
Decision
Application dismissed; plaintiff not required to deposit security for 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

Court held that security for costs is not ordered on the ground of poverty. A plaintiff company registered and carrying on business within the jurisdiction of the court cannot be required to give security for costs merely because it lacks assets. The principle that security may be required from a party resident abroad does not apply to a company registered in Uganda. Application for security for costs dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; plaintiff not required to deposit security for costs

Facts

Minawa Inn Limited, the plaintiff, purchased departed Asian property on plot No. 11 Nakivubo Place from D.A.P.C.B. in 1977. The former owner returned and reclaimed the property. The plaintiff sued D.A.P.C.B. and the former owner (Treon Ltd) as 2nd defendant. The suit was dismissed when the plaintiff's counsel failed to appear at a hearing date fixed with counsel's consent. The plaintiff applied to set aside the dismissal order. The 2nd defendant then applied for an order requiring the plaintiff to deposit UGX 10,000,000 as security for costs, arguing that the plaintiff company had no assets and derived income only from the suit property, and would not be able to meet obligations to the 2nd defendant if the suit was decided in the 2nd defendant's favour.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff company should be ordered to deposit security for costs of UGX 10,000,000 before the application to set aside the dismissal order is heard.
  2. Whether poverty or lack of assets is a ground for ordering security for costs.

Orders

  • Application for security for costs dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Security for Costs — Company Registered Within Jurisdiction
Security for costs will not be required from a plaintiff company registered and carrying on business within the jurisdiction of the court merely because it is resident within that jurisdiction; there is no prima facie case for requiring security for costs from such a company.
Security for Costs — Poverty Not a Ground
Poverty or lack of assets is not a ground for ordering security for costs; to order security for costs on the ground of poverty would be wrong in principle as it would turn the court into the preserve of only the rich.
Security for Costs — Plaintiff Resident Abroad With Property Within Jurisdiction
Security for costs may be required from a party permanently residing outside the jurisdiction; however, this is subject to the exception that if the party has substantial property, real or personal, within the jurisdiction which is sufficient to answer the possible claim of other litigants and which would be available for execution, the court will not order security for costs.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.23 rr 1 and 3

Cases cited (3)

  • Farrab Inc v Robson (1957) EA 441
  • Mohamed v Madani (1955) 50 EACA 8
  • Noor Mohamed Abdulla v Patel (1962) EA 441

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Minawa Inn Limited v D.A.P.C.B & Another (Civil Suit 97 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 72 (7 September 1994)
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.