James Mbabazi and Another v Matco Stores Ltd and Another (Reference No 15 of 2004)

Court of Appeal · [2004] UGCA 47 · 2004 Reference Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Reference to a single judge of the Court of Appeal from the decision of a Taxing Officer on costs

Decision

Reference allowed; Taxing Officer's order on costs set aside and costs awarded to the applicants

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

On a reference from a Taxing Officer who struck out a bill of costs on the applicants' preliminary objection but made no order as to costs, the court held that under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act costs follow the event and a successful party may be deprived of costs only for good reason. The Taxing Officer's order that he made no order as to costs was an exercise of discretion that denied the successful applicants costs without any stated reason, which was not a judicial exercise of discretion and occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The reference was allowed and the respondents ordered to pay costs of the reference and before the Taxing Officer.

Facts

The applicants had instituted Reference No. 60 of 2001 against the decision of a single judge. The full bench of the Court of Appeal heard and dismissed that reference with costs in favour of the respondents. The respondents filed a bill of costs. At the commencement of the taxation, counsel for the applicants raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the bill of costs. The Taxing Officer heard the objection, upheld it and struck out the bill, but made no order as to costs. The applicants, having succeeded on the objection, were thereby denied their costs without any reason being given. The present reference challenged that order on costs.

Issues

Whether the Taxing Officer was justified in denying the applicants, as the successful party, their costs without giving any reason.

Orders

Reference allowed.
Respondents to pay costs of the reference and the costs before the Taxing Officer.

Key headnotes

Costs — Discretion as to Costs — Costs Follow the Event under Civil Procedure Act s.27

Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act costs follow the event, and a successful party is entitled to costs and may be deprived of them only for good reason.

Costs — Judicial Exercise of Discretion — Duty to Give Reasons

Although an order that the court makes no order as to costs is an exercise of discretion, that discretion must be exercised judicially; denying a successful party costs without subscribing any reason is not a judicial exercise of discretion and may occasion a miscarriage of justice.

Legislation cited (1)

Civil Procedure Act s.27

Cases cited (3)

Kanoblic Group of Companies (U) Ltd v Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1994)
BURNE SWAN EDGAR LTD (1993) 1 ch. 211
Uganda Transport Co Ltd vs Quta (1985) HCB 28

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.