Wakilii

Abeso v Ocen (Civil Appeal 19 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 176 · 2023 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court ruling dismissing Notice to Show Cause without awarding costs to successful party
Decision
Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant in both the appeal and the lower court proceedings

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

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

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that where a trial court dismisses an application brought injudiciously and the successful party incurred costs defending it, the court must exercise its discretion under Civil Procedure Act s.27 to award costs unless good reason exists not to. The trial magistrate erred in making no order as to costs without providing reasons, particularly where the appellant was forced to engage counsel and a surveyor to defend a Notice to Show Cause concerning premises she had already vacated.

Outcome

Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant in both the appeal and the lower court proceedings

Facts

The respondent filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 004 of 2018 for distress for rent against the appellant in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Soroti. During mediation it was found that the appellant was not in rent arrears and the respondent had taken excess rent. On 5 July 2018 the trial magistrate directed the appellant to vacate the premises and the respondent to refund UGX 2,567,200, which was done. On 16 December 2019 the respondent filed an application for execution seeking to evict the appellant. The appellant's counsel notified court that the appellant had vacated Plot 25 Cementary Road and was residing on Plot 25A. The respondent disputed the existence of Plot 25A. Each party engaged a surveyor, both of whom found the appellant was residing outside Plot 25 Cementary Road on a road reserve. The trial magistrate dismissed the Notice to Show Cause with no order as to costs, finding the appellant was not in occupation of Plot 25 and that if the respondent was concerned about the road reserve occupation he should seek remedies with relevant authorities.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in dismissing the respondent's Notice to Show Cause but declining to award costs to the appellant.
  2. Whether the decision of the trial magistrate caused a miscarriage of justice.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The order as to no costs by the Trial Magistrate is set aside.
  • Costs in this appeal and the costs in lower court specifically arising from the NTC proceedings are granted to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Exercise of Discretion
The award of costs under Civil Procedure Act s.27 is discretionary, but an appellate court may interfere where the discretion was not exercised judiciously.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs Follow the Event — Denial of Costs
Where a court dismisses an application brought injudiciously and the successful party incurred costs defending it, including engaging counsel, the court must exercise its discretion to award costs unless good reason exists not to do so.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Denial of Costs — Duty to Give Reasons
A trial court that denies costs to a successful party must provide reasons for doing so; failure to provide reasons where the successful party was forced to incur costs defending an injudicious application constitutes an error.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Father Nanensio Begumisa and three Others v Eric Tiberaga (SCCA No. 17 of 2000)
  • Kinyera v Victoria Seeds Ltd (CS No. 604 of 2015)
  • Ritter v Godfrey [1920] 2 KB 47
  • Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873
  • Kisika Ltd v De Angelias [1969] EA 6
  • Obiga v Wadri & Anor [2018] UGHCCD 27

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abeso v Ocen (Civil Appeal 19 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 176 (19 June 2023)
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.