[1998] UGHC 6

[1998] UGHC 6

The court held that the main consideration in applications for security for costs is whether the plaintiff has sufficient property within the jurisdiction to satisfy a potential costs order. In this case, the plaintiffs, being foreign entities, had not demonstrated that they possessed any property or chattels in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] UGHC 6
Parties
Plaintiff: John Murray (Publishers) Ltd. & 10 Others; Defendant: G. W. Senkindu & Anor
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
High Court Civil Suit No. 1018 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
application granted in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Foreign Parties, Counterfeit Goods, Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Judgments, Costs Awards
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Intellectual Property Security for Costs Foreign Parties Counterfeit Goods Jurisdiction Enforcement of Judgments +1 more

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

Parties

John Murray (Publishers) Ltd. & 10 Others

Plaintiff

G. W. Senkindu & Anor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs, being foreign entities with no assets in Uganda, should be ordered to furnish security for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the existence of reciprocal enforcement of judgments between Uganda and the United Kingdom negates the need for security for costs.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' business presence in Uganda through an agent constitutes sufficient property within the jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the main consideration in applications for security for costs is whether the plaintiff has sufficient property within the jurisdiction to satisfy a potential costs order. In this case, the plaintiffs, being foreign entities, had not demonstrated that they possessed any property or chattels in Uganda or in the United Kingdom that could satisfy a costs order. The court found that the mere existence of reciprocal enforcement of judgments between Uganda and the UK was insufficient without evidence of assets in the UK. The argument that the plaintiffs' books were sold in Uganda through an agent was also rejected as insufficient proof of property within the jurisdiction. The...

Court Disposition

application granted in part

Orders

  • The respondents/plaintiffs are ordered to deposit or furnish security for costs in the sum of UGX 15,000,000 (Fifteen Million Shillings only).