Minawa Inn Ltd v D.A.P.C.B Anor (Civil Suit No. 97 of 1993)
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 against a plaintiff company. The court held that security for costs is not ordered on the ground of poverty. Where a plaintiff is registered and carries on business within the jurisdiction, lack of assets does not justify ordering security for costs. The test is whether the plaintiff resides outside the jurisdiction without sufficient property within it to meet possible claims.
Outcome
Application dismissed; plaintiff may proceed with its application to set aside the dismissal order without depositing security
Facts
Minawa Inn Ltd, a company registered in Uganda, purchased property from D.A.P.C.B. in 1977. The former owner later reclaimed and repossessed 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. The plaintiff applied to set aside the dismissal. The 2nd defendant then applied for an order requiring the plaintiff to deposit UGX 10 million as security for costs before the set-aside application could be heard, arguing that the plaintiff company had no assets and only derived income from the suit property, and therefore might not be able to meet the 2nd defendant's costs if the suit was decided against it.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff company should be ordered to deposit security for costs before its application to set aside the dismissal order could be heard.
- Whether poverty of a plaintiff company is a ground for ordering security for costs.
Orders
- Application for security for costs dismissed.
- Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff/respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
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 (1953) 30 EACA 8
- Noor Mohamed Abdulla v Patel (1962) EA 441
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.