[2002] UGSC 28

[2002] UGSC 28

The Supreme Court held that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify an order for security for costs. The applicant's claim that the respondents' whereabouts and assets were unknown did not amount to proof of inability to pay, and no attempt had been made to recover costs through the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] UGSC 28
Parties
Applicant: Bank of Uganda; Respondent: Joseph Nsereko; Respondent: Kisukye Sarah; Respondent: Haji Mungi & Others
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Application 7 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Appeals, Judicial Discretion, Costs Awards
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Employment and Labour Security for Costs Appeals Judicial Discretion Costs Awards

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank of Uganda

Applicant

Joseph Nsereko

Respondent

Kisukye Sarah

Respondent

Haji Mungi & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for an order for security for costs against the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' financial position justifies granting security for costs.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's failure to attempt recovery of costs before seeking court intervention affects the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify an order for security for costs. The applicant's claim that the respondents' whereabouts and assets were unknown did not amount to proof of inability to pay, and no attempt had been made to recover costs through the respondents' advocates. The court emphasized that the burden lies on the applicant to demonstrate circumstances justifying the order, and mere suspicion or lack of knowledge is inadequate. The court also noted that the respondents' appeal was not shown to be devoid of merit, and that the circumstances did not favor granting the order. The application was dismissed, with costs awarded to...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for security for costs is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondents.