Wakilii

Mugenyi v Velisa (Miscellaneous Application 1173 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 114 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for security for costs arising out of civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Application for security for costs granted; Respondent ordered to furnish 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

The High Court granted the application for security for costs against a foreign plaintiff resident outside Uganda with no known assets in the jurisdiction. The court found that while the underlying suit was not frivolous or vexatious, the defendant had a good defence likely to succeed because the property in dispute was registered in the name of a company, not the defendant personally, and the intended lease was to be between that company and the plaintiff. The court ordered security for costs primarily on the ground that the Jamaican plaintiff, resident in Tanzania, had no assets in Uganda to satisfy a costs award if the defendant succeeded.

Outcome

Application for security for costs granted; Respondent ordered to furnish security for costs

Facts

The Respondent, a Jamaican citizen resident in Tanzania, sued the Applicant for breach of contract, misrepresentation, damages, and costs in HCCS No. 481 of 2020. The claim arose from failed negotiations to rent property comprised in LRV 801 Folio 24 Plot 27 Kololo Hill Drive for seven years commencing February 2020, with the Respondent paying USD 12,000 as six months' rent. The lease agreement was not executed after the Applicant allegedly failed to disclose that the property was subject to a court dispute. The Applicant discovered the Respondent had no permanent address or assets in Uganda and filed this application seeking an order that she furnish security for costs. The Applicant contended the property was registered in the name of S & M Holdings Ltd, not in his personal name. The Respondent, though served, did not file any reply to the application.

Issues

  1. Whether there exist sufficient grounds to order the Respondent to furnish security for costs in the main suit.
  2. Whether the Applicant is being put to undue expense by defending a frivolous and vexatious suit.
  3. Whether the Applicant has a good defence to the suit that is likely to succeed.
  4. Whether the Respondent has the ability to pay costs if ordered against her.

Orders

  • Application for security for costs allowed.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Test for Granting
In applications for security for costs, the court must consider whether the applicant is being put to undue expense by defending a frivolous and vexatious suit, whether the applicant has a good defence to the suit, and whether the applicant is likely to succeed.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Foreign Plaintiff Without Local Assets
A court may order security for costs where the plaintiff is a foreign resident with no assets in the jurisdiction to satisfy a costs award if the defendant succeeds in the main suit.
Civil Procedure — Unchallenged Affidavit Evidence
Where an applicant supports an application by affidavit and the respondent does not reply by affidavit or otherwise, and the supporting evidence is credible in itself, the facts stand as unchallenged.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Assessment of Defence
At the security for costs stage, the court cannot investigate fully the merits of the case but rather assesses the probability of its success based on the pleadings and affidavits; the court is limited to determining whether the defence is good and likely to succeed.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (7)

  • Gandesha and Kampala Estates Ltd v Lutaya (SC Civil Application No. 14 of 1989)
  • Serefaco Consultants Ltd v Euro Consult BV and another (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 16 of 2007)
  • Anthony Namboro Versus Henry Kaala (1975) HCB 315
  • Noble Builders (U) Ltd and another v Jabal Singh Sandhu (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 15 of 2002)
  • Anthony Namboro and Fabiana Waburo Versus Henry Kaala (supra)
  • GM Combined (U) Ltd Versus AK Detergents (U) Ltd (1999) 2 E.A at 94
  • Ndungo Seti and two others v Sekiziyivu Sammy Moses and another (High Court Civil Suit No. 286 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugenyi v Velisa (Miscellaneous Application 1173 of 2022) [2024] UGCommC 114 (2 May 2024)
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.