[2009] UGCommC 18

[2009] UGCommC 18

The court found that Order 27 Rule 1 applies only to defendants in suits for debt or damages, and the applicant, being a plaintiff in the main suit, could not rely on this rule. Although Order 27 Rule 9 allows a plaintiff who is a defendant to a counterclaim to pay money into court, the application was brought under...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGCommC 18
Parties
Applicant: Kibuuka Musoke A. S.; Respondent: Tour & Travel Centre Ltd
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 603 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Deposit Security and Release Title
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Security for Debt, Mortgage Enforcement, Procedural Irregularities
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Security for Debt Mortgage Enforcement Procedural Irregularities

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

Parties

Kibuuka Musoke A. S.

Applicant

Tour & Travel Centre Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Deposit Security and Release Title

  1. 1 Whether the applicant, as a plaintiff and defendant to a counterclaim, can apply to deposit security under Order 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the court can allow substitution of a mortgage security (title deed) with a bank guarantee.
  3. 3 Whether procedural defects in the application are fatal to its determination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Order 27 Rule 1 applies only to defendants in suits for debt or damages, and the applicant, being a plaintiff in the main suit, could not rely on this rule. Although Order 27 Rule 9 allows a plaintiff who is a defendant to a counterclaim to pay money into court, the application was brought under the wrong rule. However, the procedural defect was not fatal since the application was by notice of motion as required. Nonetheless, the relief sought—deposit of a bank guarantee as security in substitution for the title deed—was not covered by Order 27, which only contemplates payment of money into court in satisfaction of a claim, not substitution of security. Furthermore,...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to deposit a bank guarantee as security and for release of the title deed is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.