Wakilii

Mulindwa George v Kisubika [2015] UGSC 8

Supreme Court · 2015 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single Justice of the Supreme Court for leave to prosecute an appeal in forma pauperis (as a pauper) under Rule 109 of the Supreme Court Rules
Decision
Application for leave to appeal as a pauper dismissed; applicant remains free to pursue the appeal if he obtains the resources

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

On an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis under Rule 109 of the Supreme Court Rules, the single Justice held that the threshold is high and the onus lies on the applicant to make full, candid disclosure of his financial position; failure to do so leads to dismissal. The applicant, who merely asserted he had no job, made no full disclosure, appeared well-dressed, admitted owning a car and being supported by working children, and led no independent evidence of poverty. The Court also found the appeal had only slim prospects of success, viewing the application as a device to avoid depositing security for costs. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal as a pauper dismissed; applicant remains free to pursue the appeal if he obtains the resources

Facts

The applicant applied to the Supreme Court for leave to prosecute Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2013 in forma pauperis, stating he had no job or reliable source of income. The dispute had a long history dating to 1991, involving successive suits against the respondent, all unsuccessful, including the applicant's earlier refusal to deposit ordered security for costs. The respondent, citing age, ill health and limited means after defending the same matter for years, asked the Court to proceed in his absence. In support of his application the applicant merely asserted a lack of income without disclosing his assets. At the hearing he appeared a well-dressed, well-nourished gentleman, stated he owned a car, and said he was looked after by children who were in business or employment. He led no independent evidence that he was a very poor person unable to afford the fees and security for costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established that he lacks the means to pay the required fees and to deposit security for costs so as to qualify as a pauper under Rule 109 of the Supreme Court Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant's intended appeal has a reasonable possibility of success as required for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.
  • This order does not preclude the applicant from pursuing his appeal if he can obtain resources to do so.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis — Duty of Full Disclosure of Means
An applicant seeking leave to appeal in forma pauperis bears the onus of candidly and fully disclosing his complete financial position to the court; a bare assertion of lacking a job or income, without disclosure of assets, is insufficient, and failure to make full disclosure warrants dismissal of the application.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis — Twin Test of Indigence and Reasonable Prospects of Success
Leave to prosecute an appeal in forma pauperis under Rule 109 of the Supreme Court Rules is granted only where the applicant establishes both that he lacks the means to pay the required fees and security for costs and that the appeal is not without a reasonable possibility of success; the relief is confined to a narrow scope and the court exercises its discretion judiciously.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Abuse of Pauper Proceedings
Pauper proceedings cannot be used as a device to evade an obligation to deposit security for costs previously ordered by the court, and an application that appears to be a means of avoiding that obligation will not be condoned.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd & Anor (Civil Application No. 22 of 1999)
  • In the Matter between Alex Mabuka and Hannelie Duvenhage and Another, case No. SA 22/2008, Supreme Court of Namibia
  • the Supreme Court of Kenya in a similar application in petition No. 3 of 2013, in the Matter of Article 140(1) of the Supreme Court Presidential Election Petition Rules, 2013

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mulindwa George Vs Kisubika [2015] UGSC 8 (23 April 2015)
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.