Namuyaba Barbra v Herbert Mutunda Lubega and 7 Others [2026] UGHCLD 60
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 court held that security for costs will not be ordered against a plaintiff permanently residing outside the jurisdiction where that plaintiff has substantial real or personal property within the jurisdiction available to satisfy any costs order. The respondents, though resident in the United States, showed registered properties at Muyenga and Katabi-Entebbe which the applicant did not contradict; those averments were deemed true and the applicant's fears of unpaid costs were allayed. The application for security for costs accordingly failed, and the case was distinguished from Noble Builders where the foreign plaintiffs had no assets locally. Determination of the prayer to amend the counterclaim was deferred to the pre-trial scheduling conference.
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed; prayer for amendment of the counterclaim deferred to the pre-trial scheduling conference in HCCS No. 0048 of 2021
Facts
In the head suit, eight children of the late Charles Wilson Lubega sued Namuyaba Barbra and the Commissioner for Land Registration over land at Najjanankumbi, challenging the Commissioner's cancellation of their father's registration as proprietor. Namuyaba denied the claim, asserting title to land she described as Kibuga Block 13 Plot 56, and counterclaimed as beneficiary and administrator of the estate of the late Yoweri Gwayambadde alleging fraud. She then applied for security for costs, contending that all the plaintiffs permanently reside in the United States, are not Ugandan citizens, and own no property in Uganda available for execution should she succeed. The respondents replied through their attorney that they are Ugandan citizens by birth and own several properties in Uganda, including land at Muyenga Block 244 Plot 3220 registered to the fifth respondent and land at Katabi, Entebbe registered to the fourth and fifth respondents as joint tenants. The applicant's rejoinder disputed the attorney's authority but did not contradict the claimed property ownership. The applicant also sought leave to amend her counterclaim, which the respondents opposed as an attempt to defeat their limitation defence.
Issues
- Whether the respondents/plaintiffs, being permanent residents outside Uganda, should be ordered to furnish security for costs under Order 26 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend her counterclaim at this stage of the proceedings.
Orders
- The application for security for costs fails.
- The application for amendment of pleadings is deferred and will be considered at the pre-trial scheduling of the head suit.
- HCCS No. 0048 of 2021 is fixed for scheduling, with counsel to file a joint trial bundle and joint scheduling memorandum on ECCMIS by that date.
- The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the head suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 212) s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules O.26 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.19
Cases cited (3)
- Farrab Incorporated v Brian John Robson and Ors [1957] EA 441-442
- Noble Builders (U) Ltd and Another v Jaspal Singh Sandhu (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2002)
- Eastern Bakery v Catellno [1958] E.A. 461
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.