Tusubira Joseph v Umeme Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 88 of 2025)
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
Application for security for costs dismissed. Court held that Order 40 CPR requires proof that defendant is leaving jurisdiction to obstruct decree execution. Respondent's exit from Uganda's power distribution market was pursuant to natural expiry of a twenty-year concession agreement with Government, not mala fide flight from creditors. Liabilities may have transferred to successor company UEDCL under orderly handover arrangements. Attachment order premature without ascertaining liability allocation in exit arrangement.
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed; main suit to proceed to trial
Facts
Applicant filed suit against respondent seeking UGX 3,633,215,000 compensation for equipment damaged by alleged high voltage electricity supply to his plastics factory, plus medical expenses and damages. Before serving plaint, applicant sought court order requiring respondent to deposit the claimed sum as security pending suit determination under Order 40 CPR. Applicant alleged respondent was winding up business in Uganda after its power distribution concession was not renewed by government. Respondent opposed, stating its twenty-year concession with Government of Uganda had naturally expired in March 2025, it remained listed on Uganda and Nairobi Stock Exchanges with NSSF as majority shareholder, had not commenced delisting or winding up, was conducting orderly handover to successor company UEDCL, and maintained insurance coverage for such claims through Sanlam General Insurance.
Issues
- Whether the respondent is exiting the jurisdiction of court to defeat the plaintiff's suit.
- Whether the defendant's liability was passed over to Government of Uganda through the successor company UEDCL.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
Cases cited (1)
- Lister v Stubbs (1890) 45 CHD 4
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.