Wakilii

Dattani v Dawda (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1949)

East African Court of Appeal · [1949] EACA 8 · 1949 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from High Court of Uganda against order depriving successful defendant of costs
Decision
Order depriving defendant of costs set aside; defendant awarded costs at both levels

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

A successful defendant brought into court against his will can only be deprived of costs when his conduct, either before or during the action, led to litigation that could have been avoided. Where a defendant raised a valid preliminary objection that the amended plaint disclosed no cause of action at trial, and no alternative course would have reduced costs, the trial judge erred in depriving him of costs. Appeal allowed; defendant awarded costs in the court below and on appeal.

Outcome

Order depriving defendant of costs set aside; defendant awarded costs at both levels

Facts

The plaintiff filed a summons under Order XXXIII of the Uganda Civil Procedure Rules. The defendant obtained leave to defend and filed a written statement. The plaintiff then filed an amended plaint. At trial in Jinja on 30 November 1948, defendant's counsel raised a preliminary objection that the amended plaint disclosed no cause of action. The Chief Justice upheld the objection and rejected the plaint under Order XI rule 11(a), dismissing the action. However, the Chief Justice deprived the successful defendant of his costs on the ground that the defendant should have raised the objection earlier, either in a fresh defence to the amended plaint or by separate motion before trial, and that counsel had come from Kampala to Jinja without notice that this point would be taken. The defendant appealed against the costs order.

Issues

  1. Whether a successful defendant who raised a preliminary objection at trial without prior notice should be deprived of his costs.
  2. What constitutes good reason under section 27(1) of the Uganda Civil Procedure Ordinance to deprive a successful litigant of costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Order of the Chief Justice depriving the defendant of his costs set aside.
  • Defendant granted his costs in the court below.
  • Defendant granted costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Successful Defendant — Deprivation of Costs
A successful defendant, who is brought into court against his will, can only be deprived of his costs when it is shown that his conduct, either prior to or during the course of the action, has led to litigation which but for his own conduct might have been averted.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Judicial Discretion — Grounds for Exercise
The exercise of judicial discretion as to costs must be based on facts, and where there are grounds to support the exercise of discretion, the question of sufficiency is for the trial judge alone, and the Court of Appeal will not interfere unless the discretion was not exercised on proper grounds.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Timing — Effect on Costs
Where a defendant raises a preliminary objection that the plaint discloses no cause of action at trial rather than by earlier motion or pleading, and no alternative course would have resulted in any saving of costs, the defendant cannot be deprived of costs on the ground of improper timing.
Civil Procedure — Amended Pleadings — Defendant's Obligation to Plead
Where a plaintiff files an amended plaint after the defendant has already filed a written statement to the original plaint, a subsequent pleading is not required of the defendant either by law or by any rule of practice.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Uganda Civil Procedure Ordinance s.27(1)
  • Uganda Civil Procedure Rules Order XXXIII
  • Uganda Civil Procedure Rules Order VII rule 11
  • Uganda Civil Procedure Rules Order XI rule 11(a)

Cases cited (1)

  • Donald Campbell v Pollak (1927) AC 732

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dattani v Dawda (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1949) [1949] EACA 8 (1 January 1949)
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.