Twetise v Lyu & Another (Miscellaneous Application 469 of 2023)
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 an applicant seeking attachment before judgment or security for appearance under section 64 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules must furnish real evidence that the defendant intends to leave the jurisdiction or obstruct justice. Where a defendant's passport has been retained by a criminal court in related proceedings, restricting their movement, there is no basis to order further security. Application dismissed.
Outcome
Application dismissed; main suit to proceed to hearing
Facts
The applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 271 of 2023 against the respondents seeking USD 80,000 for alleged deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation. The applicant also made a police complaint resulting in theft charges against the respondents. The applicant filed this interlocutory application seeking a warrant of arrest and an order requiring the respondents to deposit USD 80,000 or furnish security for their appearance, alleging that the respondents, being Chinese nationals with no permanent residence or assets in Uganda, were likely to abscond. The 2nd respondent opposed the application, stating he had been granted police bond, later bail of UGX 10,000,000, and had deposited his passport with Nakawa Chief Magistrate's Court. The respondent stated he had honoured all court dates and had no intention to leave Uganda.
Issues
- Whether the court should issue a warrant of arrest against the respondents and order them to furnish security for their appearance.
- Whether the respondents, being foreign nationals, posed a real risk of absconding from the jurisdiction before determination of the main suit.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Main suit to be tracked for hearing.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
Cases cited (4)
- Uganda Electricity Board (in liquidation) v Royal Van Zanteen (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 251 of 2006)
- Pyarali Datardini -Vs- Anglo American Amusement Park IV ULR 28
- Abby Mugimu v Basabosa (High Court Civil Suit No. 922 of 1990)
- Makerere University Vs St Mark Education Institute Ltd & ors [1994] KALR 681
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.