[2017] UGHCCD 166

[2017] UGHCCD 166

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the respondent would be unable to pay costs if the suit was unsuccessful. The respondent's suit was not shown to be frivolous or devoid of merit, and there was a prima facie case requiring trial. The applicant's assertion of the respondent's lack of assets was unsupported, especially given the prior business relationship and substantial payments made. The court emphasized that the discretion to order security for costs should not be exercised to fetter access to justice, particularly where the applicant had not complied with previous court orders. Consequently, the application for security for costs was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] UGHCCD 166
Parties
Applicant: Plinth Technical Works Ltd.; Respondent: G-Great Company Ltd.
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
20 December 2017
Case Number
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 060 OF 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
Rugadya, J
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Company Plaintiff Liability, Breach of Contract, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Security for Costs Company Plaintiff Liability Breach of Contract Judicial Discretion

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

Parties

Plinth Technical Works Ltd.

Applicant

G-Great Company Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be ordered to furnish security for costs in the pending suit.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent company has demonstrated inability to pay costs if the suit fails.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has shown that the respondent's suit is frivolous or vexatious.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the respondent would be unable to pay costs if the suit was unsuccessful. The respondent's suit was not shown to be frivolous or devoid of merit, and there was a prima facie case requiring trial. The applicant's assertion of the respondent's lack of assets was unsupported, especially given the prior business relationship and substantial payments made. The court emphasized that the discretion to order security for costs should not be exercised to fetter access to justice, particularly where the applicant had not complied with previous court orders. Consequently, the application for security for costs was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for security for costs is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.