The High Court in Masaka has dismissed an application by Kuteesa Sam Kahamba seeking to compel Alice Nambooze Osaga to deposit security for costs in an ongoing land dispute.
In her ruling, Fatuma Nanziri Bwanika held that the application lacked sufficient legal basis and would unjustly hinder the respondent’s right to access justice.
Kuteesa had asked court to order Nambooze to furnish security for costs in a substantive suit in which she is seeking to be declared the lawful owner of land located on Mawogola/MSK 547, Block 83, Plot 520. The claim in the main suit is grounded on allegations of fraud.
He argued that Nambooze, who resides in the United States, has no fixed place of abode, attachable property or known source of income in Uganda, raising concerns that she may be unable to pay legal costs if she loses the case.
Kuteesa further contended that the main suit was frivolous and vexatious, and that he has a strong defence likely to succeed at trial.
However, in rejecting the application, the court found that the claim before it raises legitimate issues that warrant a full hearing.
“I am unable to say that the plaint is either frivolous or vexatious,” Justice Bwanika ruled, noting that the case presents a clear cause of action based on alleged fraudulent acts.
The judge also dismissed arguments based on the respondent’s foreign residence, stating that being based abroad is not, on its own, sufficient ground to compel a party to deposit security for costs.
The court further held that it would be speculative to assume that a Ugandan judgment would not be enforceable in the United States, emphasising that judicial decisions must be grounded in evidence rather than conjecture.
On the question of Nambooze’s lack of a fixed residence in Uganda, the court observed that she had attributed this to the very dispute before court, alleging that Kuteesa had unlawfully taken over her home.
“It would be manifestly unjust to use a housing predicament allegedly created by the applicant as a weapon to bar the respondent’s access to justice,” the judge noted.
The court reiterated that financial status or lack of property is not a sufficient basis for ordering security for costs, warning that such orders should be applied sparingly to avoid shutting out genuine claims.
“A justiciable dispute is before this court, and the respondent is entitled to have her suit heard on its merits,” the ruling stated.
The application was dismissed, with costs to be determined in the main suit. The substantive case over ownership of the contested land will now proceed to full hearing.
