Wakilii

Reamaton Ltd v Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd (Civil Application 7 of 2000)

Supreme Court · [2000] UGSC 29 · 2000 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for further security for costs, pending Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2000 to the Supreme Court
Decision
Application for further security for costs granted; each respondent ordered to deposit Shs.31,000,000 within 45 days

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 100(3) of the Supreme Court Rules and s.404 of the Companies Act for further security for costs pending an appeal, a single Justice held that the applicant bears the burden of showing such an order is warranted, which is not granted as a matter of course, and that security may extend to past costs awarded in the courts below relating to the matters in question in the appeal. The court also held that an affidavit in reply may be sworn by a non-party who has knowledge of the facts under Rule 42(1). Finding the appeal's prospects weak and the respondents lacking realisable assets, the court ordered each respondent to provide Shs.31,000,000 further security.

Outcome

Application for further security for costs granted; each respondent ordered to deposit Shs.31,000,000 within 45 days

Facts

The applicant, Reamaton Ltd, sued the respondents in the High Court (Civil Suit 738/95) to recover US$365,000 advanced as a refinancing loan to purchase the respondents' coffee. It obtained a preliminary decree for US$211,200 on the respondents' admission, and after trial a final decree for the full sum claimed, with interest and costs. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, but their notice of appeal was struck out at the applicant's instance and they were condemned in costs. The respondents then appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2000) against the Court of Appeal ruling, having deposited the statutory security of Shs.400,000. The applicant brought this application for Shs.150 million further security, contending the appeal had no probability of success, that substantial taxed costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal remained unpaid, that the respondents had no realisable assets beyond office furniture, and that the second respondent had left the country to evade warrants of arrest.

Issues

  1. Whether an affidavit in reply to a formal application may be sworn by a person who is not a party to the proceedings.
  2. Whether the applicant discharged the burden of showing that the respondents should be ordered to provide further security for costs.
  3. Whether security for costs under Rule 100(3) may extend to past costs awarded in the courts below.
  4. Whether the probability of success of the pending appeal and the respondents' lack of realisable assets justified an order for further security.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Further security pending appeal — Burden of proof
An applicant seeking further security for costs bears the burden of satisfying the court that the order is warranted, and such an order is not made as a matter of course but only after all the facts of the case have been considered judicially.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Scope — Past costs awarded in the courts below
Security for costs under Rule 100(3) of the Supreme Court Rules may be ordered in respect of past costs awarded in the lower courts where those costs relate to the matters in question in the appeal.
Evidence — Affidavits — Competence of deponent — Non-party with knowledge of facts
An affidavit, whether in support of or in reply to a formal application, may validly be sworn by a person who is not a party to the proceedings, provided the deponent has knowledge of the facts deponed to as required by Rule 42(1) of the Rules of the Court.
Evidence — Affidavits — Inconsistency or falsehood — Effect on the application
Not every inconsistency or inaccuracy in an affidavit is fatal to the application it supports; an inaccurate statement made mistakenly may be cured by frank disclosure and prompt correction, and a severable inaccurate paragraph may be disregarded, but a deliberate falsehood going to the root of the application will vitiate it.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Relevant factors — Prospects of appeal and means of the party
In deciding whether to order further security for costs, the probability of success of the pending appeal and the respondent's apparent lack of property out of which costs could be realised are relevant factors to be weighed together with the other circumstances of the case.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Companies Act s.404
  • Supreme Court Rules Rule 100(3)
  • Supreme Court Rules Rule 42(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules Rule 47
  • Supreme Court Rules Rule 16
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.23 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.3 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Act s.70
  • Court of Appeal Rules Rule 53

Cases cited (9)

  • A.S. Patel v American Express International Banking Corp (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1989)
  • G.M. Combined v A.K. Detergents (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1995)
  • N.M. Abdulla v R Patel (1962) EA 447
  • Bitaitana v Kananura (1977) HCB 34
  • The Nordglimt (1988) 2 All ER 531
  • Myers v Elman (1940) AC 282
  • M.B. Nandala v Father Lyding (HCCS No. 19 of 1963)
  • Masaba v Republic (1967) EA 488
  • Joy Kaingana v Dabo Boubou (1986) HCB 59

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Reamaton Ltd v Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd (Civil Application 7 of 2000) [2000] UGSC 29 (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.