[2018] UGIC 32

[2018] UGIC 32

The court found that the respondent is a foreign company whose principal contract in Uganda is ending imminently, and the respondent failed to provide satisfactory evidence of ongoing local contracts or assets sufficient to satisfy any potential decree. The court held that the risk of the respondent leaving the jurisdiction and frustrating execution was real and unaddressed. The court rejected the argument that Order 40 Rule 1 applies only to natural persons, confirming its applicability to companies. Balancing the interests of the applicant and the respondent, the court determined that security for costs was warranted to protect the integrity of its orders and the applicant's interests....

Citation
[2018] UGIC 32
Parties
Applicant: George Johnson Ojok & 87 Others; Respondent: Torres Advanced Enterprise Solution LLC
Court
Industrial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
5 September 2018
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 73 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application_allowed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Foreign Company Jurisdiction, Execution of Judgments, Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
English
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Security for Costs Foreign Company Jurisdiction Execution of Judgments 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Johnson Ojok & 87 Others

Applicant

Torres Advanced Enterprise Solution LLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent, a foreign company, is likely to leave the jurisdiction and frustrate execution of any decree passed against it.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for the court to order security for costs under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. 3 Whether Order 40 Rule 1 applies to artificial persons such as companies.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent is a foreign company whose principal contract in Uganda is ending imminently, and the respondent failed to provide satisfactory evidence of ongoing local contracts or assets sufficient to satisfy any potential decree. The court held that the risk of the respondent leaving the jurisdiction and frustrating execution was real and unaddressed. The court rejected the argument that Order 40 Rule 1 applies only to natural persons, confirming its applicability to companies. Balancing the interests of the applicant and the respondent, the court determined that security for costs was warranted to protect the integrity of its orders and the applicant's interests....

Court Disposition

application_allowed

Orders

  • The respondent shall furnish court with security in the form of either cash of 150,000,000 UGX or a bank guarantee in the same amount.
  • The respondent shall undertake to pay damages equivalent to bank rate interest accumulated on the cash deposited or bank guarantee.