Wakilii

Uganda Poultries Ltd v Kawuma & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2015)

High Court · [2015] UGHCLD 48 · 2015 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal order and reinstate suit dismissed for failure to furnish security for costs within time
Decision
Application to set aside dismissal order refused; underlying suit remains dismissed

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

An application to set aside a dismissal order for failure to furnish security for costs within the time ordered by court must demonstrate sufficient cause for the failure. Depositing security months after the deadline, without prior application for extension of time, does not constitute sufficient cause. An affidavit sworn by counsel without disclosing the source of information and lacking documentary proof of alleged efforts to raise funds is defective and inadmissible. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application to set aside dismissal order refused; underlying suit remains dismissed

Facts

Uganda Poultries Ltd filed HCCS No. 806 of 2007 concerning land. On 31 May 2013, the applicant was ordered to pay security for costs of UGX 20,000,000 by 30 July 2013. The applicant failed to pay by the deadline. The suit was dismissed on 10 December 2014. The applicant claimed it deposited the security on 6 January 2014 (later stated as 6 April 2014 in the affidavit) but the court was unaware. The applicant sought to set aside the dismissal, claiming it attempted to raise funds through a bank loan but the bank failed to provide the money in time. The respondents did not file an affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant was prevented by sufficient/good cause from depositing security for costs within time allowed by court.
  2. What remedies are available to an applicant whose suit was dismissed for failure to furnish security for costs.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Automatic Dismissal for Non-Compliance
Where a court orders a plaintiff to furnish security for costs and the plaintiff fails to comply within the time fixed, the court's power to dismiss the suit under Order 26 r.2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules is automatic and the court has no alternative but to dismiss the suit.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Dismissal for Non-Compliance with Security Order — Burden of Proof
A party seeking to set aside a dismissal order under Order 26 r.2(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules must prove to the satisfaction of the court that he or she was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing security within the time allowed. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate legally sufficient reason for the failure.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Effect of Late Deposit After Dismissal
Depositing security for costs with court after the time fixed in the court order has expired does not amount to compliance with the order. Once the deadline passes, the suit automatically stands dismissed, and subsequent deposit of funds cannot revive the suit or constitute sufficient cause for setting aside the dismissal.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Duty to Apply Before Deadline
Where a party is unable to comply with a court order within the time stipulated, the proper course is to apply to court before the expiry of the deadline to extend time, showing good cause for the inability to meet the deadline. Failure to do so and depositing funds after dismissal is of no effect.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Failure to Disclose Source of Information
An affidavit sworn by a deponent who does not have personal knowledge of the facts and who fails to disclose the source of his or her information is defective and inadmissible under Order 19 r.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Such an affidavit fails the threshold reliability test and should not be acted upon.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 24
  • Mavid Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Another v Royal Group of Pakistan and 2 Others (HCCS No. 26 of 2012)
  • Abdu Serunjogi v Sekito [1977] HCB 242
  • Bombay Four Mills v Patel [1962] EA 803

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 Poultries Ltd v Kawuma & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2015) [2015] UGHCLD 48 (5 November 2015)
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.