Wakilii

Reamaton Ltd v Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd & Anor [2000] UGSC 22

Supreme Court · 2000 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single Justice of the Supreme Court for an order for further security for costs, arising from a pending civil appeal (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2000).
Decision
Application granted; each respondent ordered to deposit Shs.31,000,000 as further security for costs within 45 days, with costs of the application to the applicant.

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

On an application for further security for costs pending a Supreme Court appeal, the court held that the applicant bears the burden of showing that the statutory security already deposited is inadequate. Security under Rule 100(3) may extend to unpaid past costs awarded in the courts below relating to the litigation now on appeal. Considering the doubtful probability of the appeal's success, the substantial unpaid taxed costs, and the respondents' lack of attachable assets and evasive conduct, the court found it just to order further security. Each respondent was ordered to provide Shs.31,000,000 within 45 days, with costs of the application to the applicant.

Outcome

Application granted; each respondent ordered to deposit Shs.31,000,000 as further security for costs within 45 days, with costs of the application to the applicant.

Facts

Reamaton Ltd sued Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd and Henry Kawalya in the High Court to recover US$365,000 advanced as a refinancing loan to purchase the respondents' coffee. A preliminary judgment for US$211,200 was entered on the respondents' admission, and after trial the court decreed the full sum of US$365,500 with interest and costs. The respondents' appeal to the Court of Appeal was struck out with costs. They then appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2000) and deposited Shs.400,000 as statutory security for costs. Reamaton applied for further security, asserting that substantial taxed costs in the courts below (over Shs.55 million) remained largely unpaid, that the second respondent was evading warrants of arrest, and that the respondents had no assets beyond office furniture. The respondents contended they had paid Shs.30,463,000 and that the past costs were not relevant to the pending appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant discharged the burden of showing that the statutory security for costs already deposited was inadequate and that the respondents should furnish further security for costs pending the appeal.
  2. Whether an order for security for costs under Rule 100(3) may extend to unpaid past costs awarded in the courts below.
  3. Whether an affidavit lodged in reply may be sworn by a person who is not a party to the proceedings.

Orders

  • Application allowed with costs to the applicant.
  • Each respondent to provide security for costs in the sum of Shs.31,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Thirty-one million) within 45 days from the date of the ruling.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Burden of Proof
An applicant seeking an order for further security for costs bears the burden of satisfying the court that the security already deposited is inadequate; a mere averment of inadequacy in the motion or affidavit is insufficient.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Past Costs in Courts Below
Under Rule 100(3) of the Supreme Court Rules, security may be ordered for payment of past costs relating to the matters in question in the appeal, which include costs awarded in the courts below relating to the litigation now the subject of the appeal.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Relevant Factors and Discretion
In exercising its discretion whether to order further security for costs pending appeal, the court considers the probability of success of the appeal, the adequacy of the existing security, whether past costs remain unpaid, and the conduct and means of the respondents, judged on the facts of each case.
Evidence — Affidavits — Deponent Need Not Be a Party
An affidavit lodged in reply to a notice of motion need not be sworn by a party to the proceedings; an officer or other person competent on the facts may swear it, provided it deposes to matters within the deponent's knowledge or to information whose source is disclosed.
Evidence — Affidavits — Disclosure of Source of Information
An affidavit that attributes information generally to a firm of advocates is bad and misleading; the particular advocate having knowledge of the facts must be named, consistent with Rule 42(1) which requires a deponent having knowledge of the facts.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Companies Act s.404
  • Rules of the Court (Supreme Court Rules) r.100(3)
  • Rules of the Court (Supreme Court Rules) r.47
  • Rules of the Court (Supreme Court Rules) r.46
  • Rules of the Court (Supreme Court Rules) r.42(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.23 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Act s.70
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.54

Cases cited (6)

  • A.S. Patel v American Express International Banking Corp (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1989)
  • G.M. Combined v A.K. Detergents (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • N.M. Abdulla v R. Patel [1962] EA 447
  • Bitaitana v Kananura [1977] HCB 34
  • Masaba v Republic [1967] EA 488
  • Joy Kaingana v Dabo Boubon [1986] HCB 59

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Reamaton Ltd v Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd & Anor [2000] UGSC 22 (17 October 2000)
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.