Wakilii

Suryakant v Ngobi and Another (HCT-03-CV-ML 3 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 178 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Ruling of Deputy Registrar ordering security for costs in underlying land dispute
Decision
Appeal dismissed; appellant ordered to comply with Deputy Registrar's orders for security for costs within 10 days

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

The High Court dismissed the appeal against the Deputy Registrar's order for security for costs, holding that the appeal was incompetent for three reasons: (1) the appellant failed to obtain leave to appeal where no automatic right existed under Order 44 CPR; (2) the appellant filed written submissions nine days out of time without seeking leave to extend time under Order 51 rule 6 CPR; and (3) on the merits, the Deputy Registrar correctly exercised discretion in ordering security for costs where the appellant resided abroad with no tangible assets in Uganda from which costs could be recovered. The appeal lacked merit both procedurally and substantively.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; appellant ordered to comply with Deputy Registrar's orders for security for costs within 10 days

Facts

The appellant filed Civil Suit No. 81 of 2022 claiming ownership of land comprised in LRV 668 Folio 13, alleging the respondents fraudulently acquired and registered special certificate of title to his land. The respondents applied for security for costs under Miscellaneous Application No. 76 of 2023. The Deputy Registrar ordered the appellant to deposit UGX 140,000,000 as security for costs within 30 days and to provide proof of settlement of costs in a prior suit (HCCS No. 154 of 2014) within 10 days. The appellant appealed these orders. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant filed written submissions nine days late without seeking leave to extend time. The respondents raised preliminary objections that the appeal was incompetent because the appellant had not obtained leave to appeal an order for security for costs, which is not appealable as of right under Order 44 CPR.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Registrar erred in law and fact when he ruled that the Applicant deposits Uganda Shillings 140,000,000 as security for costs within 30 days from the date of the ruling without properly considering the law on security for costs.
  2. Whether the learned Registrar erred in law and fact when he ruled that the Applicant provides proof of settlement of all costs in Jinja HCCS No. 154 of 2014 within 10 days from the date of making his decision.
  3. Whether the learned Registrar erred in law and fact when he failed to properly analyze the pleadings on record thus coming to a wrong conclusion.
  4. Whether the appeal was competent and properly before the court.

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 003 of 2023 is dismissed for failure to comply with Court Orders and for failure to obtain leave to enlarge time.
  • The Ruling and Orders of the Learned Deputy Registrar in Miscellaneous Application No. 76 of 2023 are hereby upheld with an addition that they should be complied with within 10 days of reading this Judgment.
  • The costs of this Appeal both in the High Court and the Court below are awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Orders for Security for Costs
An order for security for costs issued under Order 26 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules is not one of the orders listed under Order 44 CPR as appealable as of right. Where no automatic right of appeal exists, Order 44(2) CPR requires the aggrieved party to first seek leave of the court making the order, and if denied, to seek leave from the appellate court. Failure to obtain leave where required renders the appeal incompetent and it must be struck out regardless of merit.
Civil Procedure — Court Orders — Compliance — Extension of Time
Where a court has fixed a limited time for doing any act such as filing written submissions, Order 51 rule 6 CPR empowers the court to enlarge time upon such terms as justice requires. A party who fails to comply with court-ordered timelines must apply for extension of time. Filing submissions out of time without seeking leave to extend time constitutes contemptuous disregard of court directives and may justify dismissal of the appeal. Court orders are sacrosanct and must be respected whether they please or displease the party.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Discretion of Court — Factors for Consideration
Under Order 26 rule 1 CPR, the court has discretion to order a plaintiff to give security for costs. In exercising this discretion, the court considers: (1) whether the plaintiff has a reasonably good prospect of success; (2) whether there is a strong prima facie presumption the defendant will fail; (3) whether there are admissions on the pleadings; (4) whether the defendant admits liability; and (5) whether there has been substantial payment into court. An applicant for security for costs bears the burden to satisfy the court that circumstances justify the order. Where a plaintiff resides abroad and has no tangible assets in the jurisdiction from which costs can be recovered, the court may properly exercise discretion to order security for costs.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (9)

  • Housing Finance Bank Limited and Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • GM Combined (U) Limited v AK Detergents (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1994)
  • Dr Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Kisule v Green Land Bank (In Liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2010)
  • INCAFEX Ltd v James Kabagereine (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1997)
  • GM Combined (U) Limited v AK Detergents (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995)
  • Bank of Uganda v Joseph Nsereko and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 7 of 2002)
  • Ramzanali Mohamed Ali Meghani v Kibona Enterprises (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2002)
  • Makerere University vs St Mark Education Institute Ltd
  • Kayinza Reheme and 2 Others v Board of Governors Wanyange Girls Secondary School (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 37 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Suryakant v Ngobi and Another (HCT-03-CV-ML 3 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 178 (18 October 2023)
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.