Wakilii

Uganda Muslim Supreme Council v Concorp International Ltd (Civil Application No. 88 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2016] UGCA 102 · 2016 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for further security for costs and security for past costs pending appeal
Decision
Respondent ordered to deposit UGX 626,920,569 as security for past costs within 30 days; further security for costs of appeal refused

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times 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 for security for costs against a foreign company under receivership with no known assets in Uganda, the single Justice held that the Court must weigh all the circumstances, including the bona fides and prospects of success of the appeal and the risk of stifling a genuine claim. While the applicant was entitled to security for past taxed costs given the respondent's foreign status and lack of local assets, ordering further security equal to 10% of the 52 billion shilling claim would stifle a bona fide appeal with reasonable prospects of success. The application succeeded in part: the respondent was ordered to deposit the taxed past costs as security, but further security for costs of the appeal was refused.

Outcome

Respondent ordered to deposit UGX 626,920,569 as security for past costs within 30 days; further security for costs of appeal refused

Facts

Concorp International Ltd (respondent) sued Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (applicant) in the High Court Commercial Division for over US$5,000,000 arising from a building contract and a memorandum of understanding. The suit was dismissed and Concorp was instead ordered to pay US$2,024,442 (stated elsewhere as USD 2,032,077) to the Government of Uganda, being amounts paid in excess of the contract amount, plus costs. Concorp appealed to the Court of Appeal. The applicant's bill of costs was taxed and allowed at UGX 626,920,569 on 11 March 2016, which the respondent had not paid. The applicant applied for security for past costs and further security for the costs of the appeal, contending that the respondent was a foreign company incorporated in the UK, registered in Uganda, engaged in no economic activity and possessing no assets within the jurisdiction. The respondent did not controvert these assertions but argued that it was under receivership, that an order would stifle a bona fide appeal with high prospects of success, and that its financial difficulties stemmed from the underlying claim.

Issues

  1. Whether a case was made out for an order requiring the respondent to give further security for the costs of the appeal.
  2. Whether the respondent should be ordered to give security for past costs already taxed and unpaid.

Orders

  • Application succeeds in part.
  • Respondent directed to deposit in court UGX 626,920,569 within thirty days of the date of the Ruling as security for past (taxed) costs.
  • Order for further security for costs of the appeal declined.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Burden on Applicant
An applicant for further security for costs bears the burden of satisfying the court that circumstances justifying the order exist; merely averring that security already deposited is inadequate or that earlier costs ordered in his favour remain unpaid does not by itself oblige the court to grant the application.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Discretion and Relevant Circumstances
The court's power to order security for costs under rule 105(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules is discretionary and must be exercised judicially after considering all the circumstances, including whether the appeal is bona fide and not a sham, whether it has a reasonably good prospect of success, whether there is an admission that money is due, whether the application is being used oppressively to stifle a genuine claim, and whether the respondent's financial difficulties were caused by the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Foreign Company Without Local Assets
Where a respondent is a foreign company with no known assets or income within the jurisdiction, this lends credence to the applicant's fear that costs awarded may be unrecoverable, and may justify an order for security for past taxed costs already incurred.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Risk of Stifling a Bona Fide Appeal
An order for security for costs may become a weapon of oppression enabling the strong to deny the weak access to justice; accordingly a court should decline to order further security where doing so would stifle a bona fide appeal that has reasonably good prospects of success.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Quantum of Security
The amount of security ordered should approximate the probable amount of costs payable, but the court retains an absolute discretion as to the amount, timing, manner and terms of security; a claimed percentage of the value of the subject matter must be supported by authority.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Lalli Ganeji vs Nathoo Vasanjee (1960) E.A. 315
  • Noble Builders (U) Ltd v Jabal Singh Sandhu (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004)
  • De Bry vs. Fitzgerald and another (1990) 1 All ER 560
  • Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co. Ltd v Triplan Ltd [1973] QBD 611

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Uganda Muslim Supreme Council v Concorp International Ltd (Civil Application No. 88 of 2016) [2016] UGCA 102 (4 August 2016)
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.