Wakilii

Ssekuuma & Ors v Ssempijja (Misc. Application No. 0140 of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCLD 47 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for security for costs arising from Civil Suit No. 0013 of 2018 in the High Court Land Division
Decision
Application for security for costs dismissed

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 the application for security for costs was not proved. Both the applicants and respondent had prima facie cases and it could not be determined at this interlocutory stage whether the suit was frivolous, vexatious, res judicata or time-barred without going into the merits. The applicants failed to prove the respondent's inability to pay costs; mere lack of knowledge of the respondent's financial position cannot constitute evidence of inability to pay.

Outcome

Application for security for costs dismissed

Facts

The respondent, as administrator of the estate of the late Maria Nakaberenge, filed Civil Suit No. 0013 of 2018 against fourteen applicants claiming a declaration of kibanja ownership, eviction, demolition and injunction concerning land comprised in Mengo District Block 12 Plot 542. The applicants moved this court for an order requiring the respondent to furnish security for costs of UGX 200,000,000. The applicants alleged that the respondent and his late father John Kaweesa had instituted several previous suits against them (Civil Suit No. 0103 of 1992, Civil Suit No. 179 of 2009, Civil Suit No. 131 of 2010) all of which were dismissed or lost, with costs remaining unpaid. The applicants claimed they were registered proprietors of plots within the subdivided land and that the current suit was time-barred, res judicata, frivolous and vexatious. The respondent countered that the previous suits were dismissed on technical grounds without considering merits and that unlike previous suits which concerned legal title, the current suit concerned a kibanja claim based on customary occupation by the late Maria Nakaberenge who paid busuulu from 1955-1992.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted an order requiring the respondent to furnish security for costs estimated at UGX 200,000,000.
  2. Whether the applicants are being put to undue expense defending a frivolous and vexatious suit.
  3. Whether the applicants have a good defence likely to succeed.
  4. Whether the respondent is unable to pay costs if ordered to do so.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order made requiring respondent to furnish security for costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Factors for Consideration — Frivolous and Vexatious Suit
In an application for security for costs, the main considerations are whether the applicant is being put to undue expense defending a frivolous and vexatious suit, and whether the applicant has a good defence likely to succeed. Only after these factors are considered do factors such as inability to pay come into account.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Assessment of Prima Facie Case — Interlocutory Stage
The court must consider the prima facie case of both the plaintiff and the defendant in an application for security for costs. Since trial has not taken place, assessment of merits can only be based on pleadings, affidavits and other available material, with care taken not to touch the merits of the main suit.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Inability to Pay — Burden of Proof
Mere poverty of a plaintiff is not by itself a ground for ordering security for costs, as this would deter poor litigants from enforcing legitimate rights. Lack of knowledge on the part of the applicant regarding the respondent's assets cannot amount to evidence of inability to pay costs; the applicant must provide positive proof of the respondent's inability to meet a costs order.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Anthony Namboro and Anor v Henry Kaala [1975] HCB 315
  • G.M. Combined (U) Ltd v A.K. Detergents (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1993)
  • Bank of Uganda v Joseph Nsereko & 2 Others (Civil Application No. 7 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssekuuma_&_Ors_v_Ssempijja_(Misc._Application_No._0140_of_2018)_[2018]_UGHCLD_47_(11_May_2018)
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.