[2000] UGCommC 3

[2000] UGCommC 3

The court found that the applicants, as receivers, were in possession of property valued at over one billion shillings, which was sufficient to cover any costs likely to be incurred in the litigation. The evidence did not support the necessity for an order for security for costs, as the applicants had access to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] UGCommC 3
Parties
Applicant: Development Finance Company of Uganda Limited and Others; Respondent: N. G. General Limited
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1527 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Receivership, Consent Judgment, Loan Default
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Security for Costs Receivership Consent Judgment Loan Default

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Development Finance Company of Uganda Limited and Others

Applicant

N. G. General Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be ordered to furnish security for costs given its receivership status and indebtedness.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' possession of the respondent's property is sufficient to cover potential costs.
  3. 3 Whether the grounds for security for costs are adequate under the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, as receivers, were in possession of property valued at over one billion shillings, which was sufficient to cover any costs likely to be incurred in the litigation. The evidence did not support the necessity for an order for security for costs, as the applicants had access to substantial assets from which costs could be recovered. The application for security for costs was therefore without merit and dismissed. The court emphasized that receivership alone, without evidence of inability to recover costs, does not justify such an order.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for security for costs is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.