Wakilii

Bhanji v Thakore (C.C. 365-1930.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1930] EACA 96 · 1930 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of costs following judgment on specially endorsed plaint where defendant failed to provide security for conditional leave to defend
Decision
Advocate's application for full costs dismissed; Registrar's ruling on fixed costs affirmed

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

Where a defendant is granted conditional leave to defend under Order 33 but fails to provide the required security, the leave lapses and the plaintiff is entitled only to the fixed costs of Sh. 100 provided by the Rules for suits on specially endorsed plaints. The conditional leave to defend, when the condition is unfulfilled, does not take the case out of the rule for costs in summary cases.

Outcome

Advocate's application for full costs dismissed; Registrar's ruling on fixed costs affirmed

Facts

The plaintiff filed a plaint under Order 33 on a specially endorsed summons. The defendant applied for leave to defend on 13 November 1930. The Judge granted conditional leave subject to the defendant paying £100 into Court by 27 November 1930. The defendant failed to pay the required sum. The leave to defend therefore lapsed and judgment was entered ex parte against the defendant on 5 December 1930. The Registrar taxed costs at the fixed amount of Sh. 100 provided by the Rules for specially endorsed plaints, plus Sh. 30 for attendance in Chambers. The plaintiff's advocate contended he was entitled to draw up and tax a full bill of costs and sought a Judge's ruling on the matter.

Issues

  1. What amount of costs should be allowed when a defendant is granted conditional leave to defend but does not give the security required?

Orders

  • Registrar's ruling affirmed.
  • Plaintiff entitled to fixed costs of Sh. 100 under Order 33.
  • Additional Sh. 30 allowed for attendance in Chambers on 13 November 1930.
  • Additional advocate's costs of Sh. 34 allowed for the application to defend.
  • Court fees allowed.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Specially Endorsed Plaints — Conditional Leave to Defend
Where a defendant is granted conditional leave to defend under Order 33 but fails to fulfil the condition by providing the required security, the leave lapses and the plaintiff is entitled only to the fixed costs provided by the Rules for suits on specially endorsed plaints, not a full bill of costs.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure Rules 1927 Order 33 Rule 8
  • Civil Procedure Rules 1927 Order 33 Rule 10
  • Civil Procedure Rules 1927 Order 33 Rule 5

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bhanji v Thakore (C.C. 365-1930.) [1930] EACA 96 (1 January 1930)
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.