[1929] EACA 49

[1929] EACA 49

The court held that, in line with English practice, the inability of the plaintiff to pay his debts is not a sufficient ground for ordering security for costs at first instance. The general rule is that poverty does not bar a litigant from accessing the courts, and the exception for requiring security for costs based on insolvency applies primarily to appeals, not to cases at first instance. Therefore, the application for security for costs was refused.

Citation
[1929] EACA 49
Parties
Applicant: Karm Elahi; Plaintiff: Ahmed Mohamed
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 January 1929
Case Number
C.C. 11/1929.
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Security for Costs at First Instance
Outcome
Application for security for costs refused with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Judges
Sheridan, J
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Exercise of Discretion, English Practice, Poverty and Access to Court
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Exercise of Discretion English Practice Poverty and Access to Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karm Elahi

Applicant

Ahmed Mohamed

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Security for Costs at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inability of the plaintiff to pay his debts is a sufficient ground for ordering security for costs at first instance.
  2. 2 Whether the court's discretion under Order 23 should be exercised in accordance with English practice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, in line with English practice, the inability of the plaintiff to pay his debts is not a sufficient ground for ordering security for costs at first instance. The general rule is that poverty does not bar a litigant from accessing the courts, and the exception for requiring security for costs based on insolvency applies primarily to appeals, not to cases at first instance. Therefore, the application for security for costs was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs refused with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The application for security for costs is refused.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of this application.