 |
| Courtesy photo |
This is after Salvador’s appeal for an order for a stay of enactment decree has been further frustrated after the Court of Appeal (CoA) ordered him to deposit more than Shs50m as security for costs if his application in HCCS No. 321 of 2018 is to be issued.
Providing the verdict for the application in Idringi Patrick Viera v. Lawrence B. Tumusiime, Irene Mulyagonja JA, on June 2, 2023, held that although she allowed the applicant’s appeal for a stay of performance, the Shs200,000 that he put in in the court as security for costs of the appeal should judgment pass against him, was too low.
The justice added that the amount that may fall due as costs should Salvador lose the appeal, should be proportional to the costs for the appeal in HCCS No. 321 of 2018 and HCMA No. 1315 of 2021.
“The bills of costs in the matters of the lower court show that the starting point for taxation is UGX 19, 654, 400 in HCMA No. 1315 of 2021 and UGX 31,021,608 in HCS No. 321 of 2018 making a total of UGX 50, 676,008 that should be taxed off to establish what would be due in the two matters in the lower court,” the Justice held.
Security for costs is paid by the complainant who has filed a frivolous and irritating claim if the court finds in favor of the defendant and to avoid the defendant obtaining an order in vain.
This security is taken during the pendency of the proceedings and Order 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) provides that the court may if it deems fit order a plaintiff to give security for payment of all costs incurred by any defendant.
The purpose of security for costs is to save a defendant who is to incur costs in defending a frivolous suit against the plaintiff which is expensive. It is only a defendant who has the right to apply for costs when there is reason to believe that a litigant will not be able to pay the costs of litigation.
The justice also allowed the applicant to file a memorandum and record of appeal within 30 days of the date of the ruling which shall only be accepted by the Registrar if Salvador furnishes the court with Shs50m security for the costs of the appeal. The respondent had also challenged the applicant’s edition of the name Salvador to his credentials.
Salvador’s woes started five years ago after Lawrence Tumusiime dragged him to the Magistrates Court for defaulting on payment of rent.
Tumusiime had rented Salvador and his trading partner premises at Naalya but the two defaulted on rent payment. The Magistrates Court ruled in Tumusiime’s favour but Salvador appealed to the High Court Commercial Division.
Gaswaga, Judge of the High Court passed an exparte judgment against Salvador on August 16, 2021, in HCCS No. 321 of 2018 and ordered him to pay a decretal sum of over Shs500m plus interest.
Salvador instead applied to set aside the judgment and stay its execution in HCMA No.321 of 2021 but it was dismissed by KakoozaSabiti, J on March 29, 2021.
He will now have to go and hunt for an extra Shs50m to deposit in court as security for costs if he indeed wants to go on with the legal wars or decide and pay the over Shs500m that is required from him with interest.
At the hearing of the application, the applicant was represented by Robert Apenya while the respondent was represented by Edwin Ayebare.
0 Comments