[2015] UGSC 8

[2015] UGSC 8

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of indigence beyond mere assertions of unemployment and lack of income. The court found no independent proof that he is a pauper as defined by law, noting his appearance and admission of owning a car and being supported by his children. Additionally, the court determined that the appeal lacks a reasonable possibility of success, given the applicant's repeated attempts to avoid depositing security for costs and the history of unsuccessful litigation. The application was dismissed as the applicant did not meet the strict requirements for leave to appeal as a pauper under Rule 109.

Citation
[2015] UGSC 8
Parties
Applicant: Mulindwa George William; Respondent: Kisubika Joseph
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
23 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Arach-Amoko, JSC, Katureebe, CJ, Mwangusya, JSC, Tumwesigye, JSC, Mwondha, JSC
Legal Topics
Pauper Appeals, Leave to Appeal, Security for Costs, Court Discretion, Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Pauper Appeals Leave to Appeal Security for Costs Court Discretion Affidavit Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mulindwa George William

Applicant

Kisubika Joseph

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant qualifies for leave to appeal as a pauper under Rule 109 of the Supreme Court Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient disclosure of his financial status to warrant pauper status.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal has a reasonable possibility of success as required by law.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of indigence beyond mere assertions of unemployment and lack of income. The court found no independent proof that he is a pauper as defined by law, noting his appearance and admission of owning a car and being supported by his children. Additionally, the court determined that the appeal lacks a reasonable possibility of success, given the applicant's repeated attempts to avoid depositing security for costs and the history of unsuccessful litigation. The application was dismissed as the applicant did not meet the strict requirements for leave to appeal as a pauper under Rule 109.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal as a pauper is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.