In the case of Serious Organised Crime Agency v Agidi  CA (7 September 2011), the Court of Appeal held that the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) was entitled to an order for security of its costs of defending an appeal against an assets recovery order made against a former Nigerian civil servant accused of corruption.
X was a retired Nigerian civil servant who had been accused of corruption. X appealed against an order obtained by the agency for recovery of assets worth £1.3 million from X as being the proceeds of crime. The agency sought £31,000 for its costs of defending the appeal. X argued that, although he was not impecunious, an order for security of costs would stifle his appeal.
It was held that whatever happened to the proceeds recovered, the agency would have incurred the extra costs of litigating the appeal and was therefore entitled to apply for an order for security for costs under the general procedure. X had two other properties that were unencumbered and which could be charged to raise funds. In the circumstances, there was no evidence that X's appeal would be stifled by an order for security of costs.