Wakilii

Ranchoddas and Others v Taibji and Another (C.C - 77-1928 (Msa).)

East African Court of Appeal · [1928] EACA 19 · 1928 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by defendant for security for costs of suit
Decision
Application dismissed for improper procedure

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

Held that a Judge can only make an order for security for costs under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1927 when sitting in open Court. The application must be made by motion on notice returnable in open Court, not by application in Chambers. The wording of Order 23 rule 2(3) requiring application by motion on notice, and the consistent use throughout the rules of the phrase the Court to mean a Judge sitting in open Court, necessitate this procedure.

Outcome

Application dismissed for improper procedure

Facts

The defendant applied for an order requiring the plaintiff Morarji to furnish security for the defendants' costs of the suit. The application was made returnable before a Judge in Chambers. The plaintiff respondent objected that Order 23 rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1927, which requires any application under that rule to be made by motion on notice, necessitates a hearing in open Court rather than in Chambers.

Issues

  1. Whether a Judge can make an order for security for costs under Order 23 when sitting in Chambers, or whether such application must be made by motion on notice returnable in open Court.

Orders

  • Application for security for costs dismissed on procedural grounds.
  • Application should have been made by motion on notice returnable in open Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Proper Forum for Application
An application for security for costs under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1927 must be made by motion on notice returnable in open Court and cannot be made by application in Chambers.
Civil Procedure — Interpretation of Rules — Meaning of 'the Court'
The phrase the Court in the Civil Procedure Rules means a Judge or Judges sitting in open Court and does not include a Judge sitting in Chambers, following the interpretation given to the same phrase in the Rules of the Supreme Court of England and Ireland.
Civil Procedure — Distinction Between Motions and Summonses
A real distinction in procedure exists between motions and summonses under the Civil Procedure Rules, with motions being heard in open Court and summonses being made returnable in Chambers.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Civil Procedure Rules 1927 Order 23
  • Civil Procedure Rules 1927 Order 23 r.2(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules 1927 Order 21 r.12
  • Civil Procedure Rules 1927 Order 27 r.11
  • Civil Procedure Rules 1927 Order 31 r.1(a)
  • Civil Procedure Rules 1927 Order 34 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules 1927 Order 1 r.13
  • Rules of Court No. 3 of 1911

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ranchoddas and Others v Taibji and Another (C.C - 77-1928 (Msa).) [1928] EACA 19 (1 January 1928)
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.