[2000] UGSC 22

[2000] UGSC 22

The Supreme Court found that the applicant had demonstrated that the statutory deposit of Shs.400,000 was inadequate given the substantial taxed and allowed costs, the respondents' reluctance and difficulty in paying past costs, and the lack of substantial assets from which costs could be realized. The Court held that security for costs may be ordered for past costs relating to the matters in question in the appeal, and that the applicant had met the burden of proof required under Rule 100(3) of the Supreme Court Rules. The respondents' payments towards costs were acknowledged but found insufficient, and the respondents' conduct, including evasion of arrest and lack of assets, justified...

Citation
[2000] UGSC 22
Parties
Applicant: REAMATON Ltd.; Respondent: Henry Kawalya; Respondent: Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
17 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Further Security for Costs Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed. Respondents ordered to provide further security for costs.
Judges
Tsekooko, JSC
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Appeals Process, Company Liability, Costs Taxation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Security for Costs Appeals Process Company Liability Costs Taxation

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

Parties

REAMATON Ltd.

Applicant

Henry Kawalya

Respondent

Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Further Security for Costs Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents should be ordered to provide further security for costs pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory deposit already made is adequate security for past and future costs.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have assets from which costs can be realized.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the applicant had demonstrated that the statutory deposit of Shs.400,000 was inadequate given the substantial taxed and allowed costs, the respondents' reluctance and difficulty in paying past costs, and the lack of substantial assets from which costs could be realized. The Court held that security for costs may be ordered for past costs relating to the matters in question in the appeal, and that the applicant had met the burden of proof required under Rule 100(3) of the Supreme Court Rules. The respondents' payments towards costs were acknowledged but found insufficient, and the respondents' conduct, including evasion of arrest and lack of assets, justified...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Respondents ordered to provide further security for costs.

Orders

  • Respondents must each provide security for costs in the amount fixed by the court within the specified period from the date of the order.
  • Costs of this application awarded to the applicant.