[2004] UGSC 12

[2004] UGSC 12

The court held that the applicants had shown sufficient cause for requiring further security for costs. The respondent is a foreigner resident in Canada with no assets in Uganda, and the risk of non-recovery of costs is real. The respondent did not provide evidence that Ugandan judgments are readily enforceable in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] UGSC 12
Parties
Applicant: Noble Builders (U) Limited; Applicant: Raghbir Singh Sandhu; Respondent: Jabal Singh Sandhu
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Application 15 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling
Outcome
application_allowed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Foreign Party Enforcement, Appeal Costs, Discretionary Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Security for Costs Foreign Party Enforcement Appeal Costs Discretionary Orders

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Noble Builders (U) Limited

Applicant

Raghbir Singh Sandhu

Applicant

Jabal Singh Sandhu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be ordered to furnish further security for costs pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's foreign residence and lack of assets in Uganda justify further security for costs.
  3. 3 Whether enforcement of Ugandan judgments in Canada is sufficiently straightforward to obviate the need for further security.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants had shown sufficient cause for requiring further security for costs. The respondent is a foreigner resident in Canada with no assets in Uganda, and the risk of non-recovery of costs is real. The respondent did not provide evidence that Ugandan judgments are readily enforceable in Canada, nor that reciprocal enforcement provisions apply. The court distinguished English authorities cited by the respondent, noting that the circumstances and statutory frameworks differ. The rationale for security for costs is to protect a successful party from real difficulty in enforcing a costs order, especially where the opposing party's residence and asset location make...

Court Disposition

application_allowed

Orders

  • The respondent shall deposit UGX 40,000,000 in court as further security for costs within thirty days from the date of the ruling.
  • The applicants shall have the costs of this application.