Wakilii

Nyende and 44 Others v Shoprite Checkers (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 119 of 2021)

Industrial Court · [2022] UGIC 22 · 2022 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application for security for appearance arising from labour dispute claim
Decision
Respondent ordered to furnish security for appearance by depositing US$60,000 or equivalent in Uganda Shillings by way of Bank Guarantee within 30 days

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 Industrial Court held that while the respondent did not exit jurisdiction with intent to defeat court process, the absence of known assets within jurisdiction and the realistic absence of the respondent justified ordering security for appearance. The court balanced the competing rights and ordered the respondent to deposit US$60,000 as security, based on average settlement amounts paid to other applicants, to guarantee satisfaction of any award that may be passed in favour of the remaining 18 applicants.

Outcome

Respondent ordered to furnish security for appearance by depositing US$60,000 or equivalent in Uganda Shillings by way of Bank Guarantee within 30 days

Facts

The applicants, 45 former employees of Shoprite Checkers (U) Ltd, sought an order requiring the respondent to furnish security for its appearance in the sum of UGX 10 billion. The respondent had ceased operations in Uganda and sold all its assets to Majid Al Futtaim LLC, which now trades as Carrefour Market. All senior officials of the respondent had left Uganda. By the time of the application, 27 of the 45 applicants had entered into settlement agreements with the respondent and been paid amounts ranging from US$415 to US$4,376. The respondent had settled 340 of its 394 employees as at 7 October 2021. The respondent had no known assets within the jurisdiction of the court. The remaining 18 applicants sought security to guarantee satisfaction of any decree that might be passed in their favour.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent should be ordered to furnish security for its appearance under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the respondent exited jurisdiction with intent to avoid, defeat, delay or obstruct the process of court or execution of a decree.
  3. What quantum of security, if any, should be ordered in the circumstances.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed to deposit the sum of US$60,000 (Sixty Thousand United States Dollars) or its equivalent in Uganda Shillings by way of Bank Guarantee in Court within 30 days from the date hereof.
  • Costs shall abide the outcome of the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Attachment Before Judgment — Security for Appearance — Requirements
To succeed in an application for attachment before judgment under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an applicant must demonstrate that the respondent has quit the jurisdiction of court with intent to avoid, defeat, delay or obstruct the process of court or execution of a decree passed against him.
Civil Procedure — Attachment Before Judgment — Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of attachment before judgment is to enable the court to grant interim relief or remedy as may be just or convenient, to preserve a fair balance between the parties and give them due protection while awaiting the final outcome of the proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Security for Appearance — Absence of Intent to Defeat Court Process
Where a respondent has exited jurisdiction for ordinary business reasons and has demonstrated willingness to meet its obligations by settling claims with a majority of claimants, the court may not find intent to defeat court process, but may still order security for appearance where there are no known assets within jurisdiction and a realistic absence of the respondent creates a grounded fear that any decree may not be satisfied.
Civil Procedure — Security for Appearance — Quantum
In determining the quantum of security for appearance, the court will consider the nature and value of the claims, previous settlement amounts paid to similarly situated claimants, and the need to provide a reasonable guarantee of satisfaction of any award without imposing an exorbitant burden on the respondent.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Makubuya Enock Will t/a Polla Plast v Songdoh Films (U) Ltd & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 321 of 2018)
  • G. Zenegalia v Sari Consulting Ltd and 2 Others (LDMA No. 229 of 2019)
  • Ojok Johnson and Others v Torres AES LLC (LDMA No. 073 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nyende_and_44_Others_v_Shoprite_Checkers_(U)_Limited_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._119_of_2021)_[2022]_UGIC_22_(26_October_2022)
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.