Wakilii

Zimbe Kassim Walugembe v Nakawungu Teopista and Another [2026] UGHC 740

High Court · 2026 Application Granted — Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for dismissal of a pending civil suit for failure to comply with an order to furnish security for costs
Decision
Main civil suit dismissed with costs for failure to furnish security for costs

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 court held that where a plaintiff fails to furnish security for costs within the time fixed, Order 26 rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules is mandatory and the court has no discretion but to dismiss the suit, unless the plaintiff is permitted to withdraw. The respondents' admission in their affidavit in reply that they were served but chose not to participate, corroborated by an unimpeached affidavit of service, disposed of the allegation that the security order was obtained ex parte. Arguments that the amount was oppressive or that the underlying fraud claim was meritorious could not defeat a valid, unchallenged order; the proper remedies were to apply to set aside, seek review of the amount, or seek leave to withdraw.

Outcome

Main civil suit dismissed with costs for failure to furnish security for costs

Facts

The respondents sued the applicant and four other defendants over land they described as family land allegedly acquired by the applicant through fraud. The applicant applied in Miscellaneous Application No. 1302 of 2025 for an order that the respondents furnish security for his costs of defending the suit. The respondents were served through their then advocates on 1 July 2025, service being acknowledged by stamp and signature, and an affidavit of service was filed on ECCMIS on 7 July 2025. The respondents neither appeared nor filed a reply. On 21 August 2025 an Assistant Registrar ordered them to deposit UGX 50,000,000 as security for costs within three months, having found that the subject matter had already been adjudicated upon, that the respondents lacked locus standi and that the applicant was defending a frivolous suit. The period elapsed on 21 November 2025 with no deposit made. The respondents took no step to set aside, review or appeal the order. The applicant then applied for dismissal of the suit. In reply the respondents claimed the order was obtained ex parte and was oppressive, while admitting they had been served and had chosen not to participate.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents were duly served with the application for security for costs and the order emanating from it.
  2. Whether the civil suit should be dismissed for the respondents' failure to furnish the security for costs ordered by the court.

Orders

  • Civil Suit No. 1058 of 2025 (formerly HC LD Civil Suit No. 318 of 2025), Nakawungu Teopista & Another v Y. Kabali & 3 Others, is dismissed with costs.
  • The applicant shall have the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Mandatory Dismissal for Non-Compliance under Order 26 rule 2(1)
Where security for costs is not furnished within the time fixed by the court, Order 26 rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules operates mandatorily and the court has no discretion but to dismiss the suit, unless the plaintiff is permitted to withdraw from it.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Affidavit of Service as Primary Proof
An affidavit of service is the primary proof that service was effected and that the party had notice of proceedings, and where it is not impeached by contrary evidence, technical objections as to service will not be allowed to defeat substantive justice.
Evidence — Admissions in Affidavits — Facts Admitted Need Not Be Proved
A deponent who expressly admits in an affidavit that she was served with an application and elected not to participate cannot thereafter complain of non-service, since under section 57 of the Evidence Act facts admitted need not be proved.
Human Rights — Access to Justice — Security for Costs as an Alleged Barrier
Security for costs serves a legitimate procedural purpose, and an order of a reasonable amount made by a competent court does not infringe the right of access to justice; a litigant who alleges that such an order is oppressive must apply to set it aside, seek review of the amount, or seek leave to withdraw, rather than ignore it.
Civil Procedure — Compliance with Court Orders — Consequences of Deliberate Non-Compliance
Courts do not issue orders in vain, and a party cannot rely on the alleged merits of its underlying claim as a shield against the consequences of non-compliance with a valid and unchallenged court order, since such non-compliance undermines the authority of the court and prejudices the party in whose favour the order was made.
Civil Procedure — Impecuniosity of Litigants — Poverty No Licence to Defy Court Orders
While poverty is no bar to a litigant, the principle does not license a plaintiff to defy a court order for security for costs with impunity where available remedies to challenge or vary the order have not been pursued.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (6)

  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Semliki Rift Trading Co. Ltd v ETS Kamanzi Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0035 of 2025)
  • Siiko Muzamil v Fred Bamwesigye and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 387 of 2020)
  • Westmont Power (K) Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya, Kenya Supreme Court, 2023
  • Shah v Manurama Ltd, (2003) 1 EA 294
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd and Another v Highland Agricultural Export Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 364 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Zimbe Kassim Walugembe v Nakawungu Teopista and Another [2026] UGHC 740 (12 June 2026)
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.