The High Court in Masaka has dismissed an application by former Foreign Affairs Minister Sam Kahamba Kutesa seeking to compel a United States-based woman to furnish security for costs in an ongoing land ownership dispute rooted in allegations of fraud.
In a ruling delivered on April 30, 2026, Justice Fatuma Nanziri Bwanika held that the application by Kutesa lacked a sufficient legal basis and warned against using financial considerations to block litigants from accessing justice.
The dispute stems from a substantive suit filed by Alice Nambooze Osaga, who is seeking to be declared the lawful owner of the land comprised in Mawogola/MSK 547, Folio 6, Block 83, Plot 520. Osaga alleges that fraudulent actions by Kuteesa and another party deprived her of ownership of the property.
Kutesa had asked the court to order Osaga to deposit security for costs before the main case could proceed, arguing that she resides in the United States, has no attachable property or known income in Uganda, and would likely fail to pay legal costs if the suit is dismissed.
However, Justice Bwanika ruled that the court’s discretion to order security for costs must be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases where sufficient cause has been demonstrated.
“The power to order for the payment of security for costs must be sparingly used as courts are required to ensure that parties with just claims are not prevented from accessing the seat of justice for their claims to be determined,” the judge stated in the ruling.
The court further rejected Kutesa’s argument that Osaga’s case was frivolous and vexatious, saying the amended plaint disclosed a genuine cause of action arising from alleged fraudulent dealings in the contested land.
“I am unable to say that the plaint is anywhere either frivolous or vexatious or still less an abuse of the process of court,” Justice Bwanika ruled.
According to the court, merely alleging that a case lacks merit is insufficient unless it is plainly evident from the face of the suit that no reasonable person could consider it bona fide.
The judge also addressed the issue of Osaga’s residence in the United States, noting that living abroad alone cannot automatically justify an order for security for costs.
“There exists no universal rule or practice to the effect that a plaintiff resident abroad will for that reason only be ordered to give security for costs,” the ruling noted.
Justice Bwanika further observed that Uganda has no formal reciprocal enforcement treaty with the United States for judgments, but emphasized that the court could not speculate on whether a future costs order would or would not be enforceable abroad.
“A court of law as a general rule cannot rely on speculations, conjectures or guesswork, but must depend upon competent proof,” she stated.
The judge also took note of Osaga’s claim that she was staying at her parents’ home because Kuteesa had allegedly taken over her residence, which forms part of the core dispute before court.
“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 the seat of justice,” Justice Bwanika ruled.
In dismissing the application, the court stressed that poverty or lack of property within Uganda is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to compel a litigant to provide security for costs.
“To grant this application would be to elevate the Applicant’s financial anxiety over the Respondent’s constitutional right to be heard,” the judge added.
The application was dismissed with costs in the cause, meaning the issue of legal costs will be determined after the main suit is concluded.
The substantive land case between Kutesa and Osaga is still pending before the High Court in Masaka.
