Wakilii

Ranchoddas and Others v Taibji and Another (Civil Case No. 77 of 1928)

East African Court of Appeal · [1928] EACA 6 · 1928 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by defendant for security for costs in first instance civil suit
Decision
Application for security for costs dismissed for procedural irregularity

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. The words 'the Court' in the Rules mean a Judge sitting in open Court, not in Chambers. The defendant's application made returnable in Chambers was procedurally improper.

Outcome

Application for security for costs dismissed for procedural irregularity

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 requires such applications to be made by motion on notice, which necessitates a hearing in open Court rather than in Chambers. The court examined the wording of the Rules and the distinction between applications made by motion versus summons, and between proceedings in open Court versus Chambers.

Issues

  1. Whether a Judge can make an order for security for costs under Order 23 when sitting in Chambers.
  2. Whether an application under Order 23 rule 2(3) requiring a motion on notice must be heard in open Court.

Orders

  • Application 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 — Jurisdiction — Distinction Between Court and Chambers
An order for security for costs under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1927 can only be made by a Judge sitting in open Court, not when sitting in Chambers.
Civil Procedure — Applications — Motion on Notice — Requirement of Open Court Hearing
Where a rule requires an application to be made by motion on notice, the words necessitate a hearing in open Court and cannot be satisfied by an application returnable in Chambers.
Civil Procedure — Interpretation of Rules — Meaning of 'The Court'
The words 'the Court' in the Civil Procedure Rules mean a Judge or Judges sitting in open Court and do not include a Judge sitting in Chambers.
Civil Procedure — Distinction Between Motions and Summonses — Procedural Requirements
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 Rule 3

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 (Civil Case No. 77 of 1928) [1928] EACA 6 (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.