Wakilii

Muwonge & Another v Goldsmith (Miscellaneous Application 3018 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 129 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for security for costs arising from land suit
Decision
Application for security for costs granted; respondent ordered to deposit UGX 50,000,000 within three months

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 an application for security for costs under Order 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, finding that the applicants demonstrated a good defence to the underlying land suit and that the respondent, resident in the United Kingdom with no known assets in Uganda, posed a real risk that any costs award would be unenforceable. The court ordered the respondent to deposit UGX 50,000,000 as security within three months.

Outcome

Application for security for costs granted; respondent ordered to deposit UGX 50,000,000 within three months

Facts

The respondent/plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 662 of 2022 seeking declarations that the applicants/defendants were trespassers who acquired registration through fraud, and orders for cancellation and reinstatement of title. The applicants filed defences raising preliminary objections including limitation and absence of any legal or equitable interest by the respondent in the suit property. The applicants contended that the respondent's claim was based on a certificate of purchase relating to a non-existent property (LRV 438 Folio 20) distinct from the property from which their title stems (LRV 438 Folio 24). The applicants further alleged that the respondent is a resident of the United Kingdom with no known assets in Uganda.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent should be ordered to furnish security for costs for payment of all costs incurred by the applicants in defending HCCS No. 662 of 2022

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Respondent ordered to furnish security for costs in the sum of UGX 50,000,000 (Fifty Million Shillings Only).
  • Respondent to deposit the said sum within three months from the date of this order.
  • Costs to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Security for Costs — Grounds for Granting
A court may order a plaintiff to furnish security for costs where the defendant demonstrates: (i) that he is being put to undue expenses defending a suit that may lack merit; (ii) that he has a good defence likely to succeed; and (iii) that there is reason to believe an order for costs would be difficult to enforce due to the plaintiff's residence outside the jurisdiction and absence of assets within it.
Security for Costs — Assessment of Merit Without Trial
At the interlocutory stage of an application for security for costs, the court must assess the prima facie merits of both parties' cases based on the pleadings, affidavits filed in support and opposition, and any other material available, since a trial will not yet have taken place.
Security for Costs — Good Defence
A defendant demonstrates a good defence where the plaintiff's claim is based on title to property materially different from the property in dispute, and where the plaintiff's alleged legal interest stems from a business name which, not being a legal entity, cannot own land.
Security for Costs — Non-Residence and Absence of Assets
Where a plaintiff resides outside the jurisdiction and holds no property within Uganda for attachment during enforcement proceedings, a defendant is entitled to security for costs to protect against the real difficulty of enforcing a costs award in the event of success.
Uncontroverted Affidavit Evidence
Where facts are sworn to in an affidavit and are not denied or rebutted by the opposite party, the presumption is that such facts are accepted.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (8)

  • Galukande Kiganda Micheal v Kibirigge George William & 2 Others (HCMA No. 261 of 2018)
  • De Bry V Fitzgerald & another (1990) 1 ALL ER 566
  • Anthony Namboro & Anor v Henry Kaala (1975) HCB 315
  • R V Ajit Singh S/o Vir Singh (1957) EA 822
  • G.M.Combined (U) Ltd v A.K.Detergents (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • Samwiri Musa v Rose Achen (1978) HCB 279
  • Ayiisa Nassuna & Another v Commissioner Land Registration (HCMC No. 07 of 2020)
  • Speke Hotel 1996 Limited v Sheila Nadege (HCMA No. 456 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muwonge_&_Another_v_Goldsmith_(Miscellaneous_Application_3018_of_2023)_[2024]_UGHCLD_129_(27_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.