[2019] UGHCLD 41

[2019] UGHCLD 41

The court found that the applicant failed to prove that the respondent's suit was frivolous or vexatious, as the main suit raised bona fide triable issues regarding the alleged fraudulent transfer of land. The applicant also failed to demonstrate a good defence likely to succeed, as the evidence regarding the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] UGHCLD 41
Parties
Applicant: Godfrey Kirumira Kalule; Respondent: J. S. F Development
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
8 July 2019
Case Number
Misc. Application No. 1878 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
Kawesa, J
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Frivolous and Vexatious Suits, Burden of Proof, Company Status, Costs Awards
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land and Property Security for Costs Frivolous and Vexatious Suits Burden of Proof Company Status Costs Awards

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godfrey Kirumira Kalule

Applicant

J. S. F Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application meets the conditions for the grant of an order for security for costs against the Respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the parties are entitled to the reliefs sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to prove that the respondent's suit was frivolous or vexatious, as the main suit raised bona fide triable issues regarding the alleged fraudulent transfer of land. The applicant also failed to demonstrate a good defence likely to succeed, as the evidence regarding the acquisition of the suit land was disputed and the applicant's title was questioned. Furthermore, the applicant's claims about the respondent's inability to pay costs were speculative and unsupported by evidence, as mere lack of knowledge of the respondent's assets or directors' whereabouts does not amount to proof of inability to pay. The court also rejected allegations of incapacity...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

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