Wakilii

Nyamarere & 3 Others v Okumu & 6 Others (Civil Application 35 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2021] UGSC 52 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for further security for costs and security for past costs in a pending civil appeal
Decision
Application for security for costs granted; respondents ordered to deposit Shs. 30,000,000 within 45 days, failing which the appeal lapses

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 7 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 7 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations fading — 7 citing cases on record, 6 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 under Rule 101(3) of the Supreme Court Rules, the single Justice held that an order for security for costs is paid into court rather than to the applicant and therefore does not amount to execution proceedings, so the application was not premature. The court found sufficient cause: the respondents' suit had been dismissed by two lower courts on preliminary objections raising no novel law, most respondents had withdrawn from the appeal, and the respondents had not controverted the averment that they had no known address or assets from which costs could be recovered. The application was granted and the respondents ordered to deposit Shs. 30,000,000 as security for costs within 45 days.

Outcome

Application for security for costs granted; respondents ordered to deposit Shs. 30,000,000 within 45 days, failing which the appeal lapses

Facts

The respondents filed High Court Civil Suit No. 49 of 2014 against the applicants and others, seeking to set aside earlier High Court orders and a decree. The trial judge upheld preliminary objections — wrong procedure, lack of locus standi, and res judicata — and dismissed the suit with costs to the applicants. The respondents' appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2017) was dismissed with costs. The respondents then appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2020), which remained pending. The applicants, holding unpaid costs from the High Court and Court of Appeal, applied for further security for costs and security for past costs, contending the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and that the respondents had no known address or assets. Most respondents had withdrawn from the appeal, leaving three. The respondents' replying affidavit did not controvert the averment that they lacked a known address or recoverable assets.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for security for costs was premature for failure to first exhaust execution remedies to recover the outstanding costs.
  2. Whether the applicants had established sufficient cause for an order requiring the respondents to furnish further security for costs and security for past costs in the pending appeal.

Orders

  • The respondents shall deposit shs. 30,000,000 (Thirty million shillings) as security for costs within 45 days from the date of this order.
  • If the respondents do not comply with order No. 1, Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2020 shall lapse forthwith.
  • The respondents shall bear the cost of this application in any event.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Distinction from Execution Proceedings
An order for security for costs is not equivalent to execution proceedings because the funds are deposited in court and are recoverable by the respondent if the appeal succeeds; an application for such security is therefore not premature merely because the applicant has not first pursued execution to recover outstanding costs.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Burden of Proof and Sufficient Cause
The burden lies on the applicant to show sufficient cause why an appellant should furnish further security for costs over and above the amount fixed by the rules, and what amounts to sufficient cause is a matter for the court's discretion depending on the circumstances of the case.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Relevant Considerations
In ordering security for costs the court considers whether the applicant is put to undue expense by defending a frivolous or vexatious claim and whether the opposing party has no known address or apparent assets from which costs can be recovered; mere poverty of a litigant is not itself a ground, and the power must be exercised sparingly while balancing access to justice.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Adequacy of Statutory Deposit
The fixed deposit prescribed under Rule 101 of the Supreme Court Rules may be treated as inadequate where the value of the currency has changed substantially since the figure was set, justifying an order for an increased sum of further security for costs.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Supreme Court Rules r.101(3)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.42
  • Supreme Court Rules r.90

Cases cited (6)

  • G.M Combined (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • Noble Builders (U) Ltd and Another v Sandhu [2004] EA 228
  • Goodman Agencies (Civil Reference No. 1 of 2011)
  • Kakooza Jonathan & Anor v Kasaala Cooperative Society Ltd (Civil Application No. 13 of 2011)
  • Namboro v Kaala [1975] HCB 315
  • UCB v Multi Constructors Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1994)

Cases citing this judgment (7)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nyamarere & 3 Others v Okumu & 6 Others (Civil Application 35 of 2020) [2021] UGSC 52 (20 August 2021)
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.