Wakilii

Electoral Commission v Ssekikubo (Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2008)

Court of Appeal · [2017] UGCA 181 · 2017 Costs Awarded ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on costs following withdrawal of a civil appeal from the High Court before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal
Decision
Appeal struck out as withdrawn; respondent awarded 90% of the costs of the appeal.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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

Following the appellant's withdrawal of the appeal with the respondent's consent, the appeal was struck out under Rule 94. The single Justice held that costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the respondent, as the successful party who retained the High Court judgment in his favour, remained entitled to substantial costs. The appellant's argument that the matter was of public interest and touched on new areas of electoral law was rejected for lack of supporting evidence. The Court nonetheless recognised that the late withdrawal had saved the respondent a full hearing, and in its judicious discretion awarded the respondent 90% of the costs of the appeal.

Facts

The Electoral Commission sued Honourable Ssekikubo Theodore in the High Court at Masaka (Civil Suit No. 035 of 2006), alleging that he had personally disrupted local council youth representative elections in Ssembabule District held on 27 April 2006, and sought special damages of shs. 66,524,980 among other reliefs. The respondent denied liability. After a full trial, the High Court dismissed the suit with costs on 5 September 2008. The Commission appealed to the Court of Appeal. When the appeal came up for hearing on 9 November 2016, it was adjourned after the appellant's counsel withdrew. On 8 December 2016 the appellant's counsel indicated instructions to withdraw the appeal, and the matter was placed before a single Justice. The appellant stated it had lost interest in the appeal, which was over eight years old and overtaken by events, and sought no order as to costs. The respondent claimed his costs as the successful party.

Issues

  1. Whether any costs of the withdrawn appeal should be ordered, and if so, by whom and to what extent.

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2008 is struck out by reason of its being withdrawn by the appellant with the consent of the respondent.
  • The respondent is awarded 90% of the costs of the appeal that is struck out.
  • The respondent is to have the costs of Civil Suit No. 035 of 2006 as awarded by the High Court.
  • The costs of these proceedings are awarded to the respondent as part of and in the same proportion as the costs of the appeal.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of the Court under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
The award of costs is an exercise of judicial discretion which must be exercised judiciously according to the facts of each case and not by any mathematical formula.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs follow the event
Costs of any action, cause, matter or issue follow the event unless the court for good reason orders otherwise, and full costs should be awarded to the successful party.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Depriving a successful party of costs
A successful party may only be denied costs for good reasons clearly set out by the court, such as misconduct, fraud tainting the transaction, or faulty pleadings, and the onus lies on the party seeking to deprive the successful party of costs.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Withdrawal of appeal under Rule 94
Where an appellant withdraws an appeal with the respondent's consent, the appeal is struck out, and the respondent who retains a favourable lower court judgment remains the successful party entitled to costs of the appeal.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.27
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 94

Cases cited (8)

  • Impressa Ing Fortunato Federice -v- Nabwire: [2001] 2 EA 383(SCU)
  • Potgieter -V- Sumberge [1964] EA 609
  • Universal Engineering Works -vs- Mohamedali Suleiman Essaji [1958] 2 LRK 99
  • Janmohamed -V- Twentsche Overseas Trading Company [1964] EA 280
  • Klerson V Thomson [1913] 1 KB 589
  • GG Somaiya and Company -V- Govinji Popflal [1954] EA 30
  • National and Grindlays Bank Ltd V Shariff [1972] EA 413
  • Kiska Ltd -v- De Angelis [1969] EA 6
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.