Wakilii

Epaku and Another v Amito (Miscellaneous Application 17 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 242 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside costs order made in earlier miscellaneous application for reinstatement of appeal
Decision
Application 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

The High Court dismissed an application seeking to set aside a costs order made in favour of the respondent in an earlier reinstatement application. The court held that it could not exercise inherent powers under section 98 to alter its own costs order, as it was functus officio. The proper remedy for challenging the costs order was by way of appeal to the Court of Appeal, not through invoking the court's inherent jurisdiction.

Outcome

Application dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The applicants were appellants in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2021, which was dismissed on 22 October 2021. They applied for reinstatement via Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 2022. On 31 October 2022, the court granted the reinstatement application but ordered costs to be paid to the respondent. The respondent filed a bill of costs for taxation. The applicants then brought this application seeking to set aside the costs order, arguing they were the successful party in the reinstatement application and should not be condemned to pay costs when the appeal had not yet been heard. The respondent opposed, arguing the applicants had shown no interest in prosecuting the appeal and that costs follow the event.

Issues

  1. Whether the court can exercise its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside its own costs order made in an earlier ruling.
  2. Whether the applicants, as successful parties in the reinstatement application, should have been awarded costs instead of the respondent.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Functus Officio — Limits on Court's Power to Vary Own Orders
A court cannot exercise its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside or vary its own costs order once it has become functus officio, as this would amount to the court sitting on appeal against its own decision.
Civil Procedure — Review — Proper Grounds and Procedure
An application to challenge a court's order must be brought under the proper legal framework; where review is sought, it must comply with section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and must establish one of the recognised grounds for review.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Challenge to Costs Order — Proper Remedy
Where a party is aggrieved by a costs order made by the High Court, the proper remedy is by way of appeal to the Court of Appeal, not through an application invoking the court's inherent powers or seeking review.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (1)

  • FX Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Epaku and Another v Amito (Miscellaneous Application 17 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 242 (23 August 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.