Wakilii

BDE Consult Limited v Uganda Registration Service Bureau (Civil Appeal 59 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 413 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court ruling on costs following settlement of debt claim
Decision
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs

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

Held that the trial Magistrate properly exercised her discretion under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act in declining to award costs to the appellant. The respondent paid the debt within one month of service delivery and before being served with summons. The delay was attributed to procurement bureaucracy in public entities and the suit was filed only two months after the contract. The general rule that costs follow the event is subject to judicial discretion and may be departed from for good reason based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The appellant filed a civil suit for recovery of UGX 16,112,000 for services rendered under a contract entered into in March 2019. A demand notice was issued on 15 May 2019 but the respondent did not respond. The suit was filed on 21 May 2019. The respondent filed a defence on 18 July 2019 indicating payment had been effected on 20 June 2019 in the sum of UGX 15,292,746 less withholding tax. The appellant acknowledged receipt of payment. The parties informed the trial court the matter had been settled but the appellant sought costs on the basis that payment was made only after suit was filed. The trial Magistrate dismissed the claim for costs, reasoning that the debt was paid within one month of service delivery, the delay was attributable to procurement bureaucracy in public entities, and payment was made before the respondent was served with summons.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in exercising her discretion injudiciously by holding that the appellant was not entitled to costs in the circumstances of the case.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Exercise of Judicial Discretion
The award of costs under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act is within the discretion of the court, which must be exercised judiciously based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the general rule that costs follow the event is not absolute.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Settled Claims — Payment Before Service of Summons
Where a defendant pays the claimed debt within one month of service delivery and before being served with summons, and the delay in payment is attributable to bureaucratic procurement procedures in a public entity, the trial court may properly exercise its discretion to refuse costs to the plaintiff even though suit had been filed.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Impress Ing. Fortunato Federic v Irene Wabwire (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Muwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2011)
  • Besigye Kizza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Electoral Commission (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Wambugu v Public Service Commission [1972] EA 296
  • Iyamuleme David v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

BDE Consult Limited v Uganda Registration Service Bureau (Civil Appeal 59 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 413 (8 May 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.