Wakilii

Ghusalal v Manmilal Raja and Others (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2000)

Court of Appeal · [2001] UGCA 54 · 2001 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal against the High Court's order awarding costs of the suit to the respondents
Decision
Appeal dismissed; trial court's order condemning the appellant to pay costs upheld

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the High Court's costs order. The court held that an appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's discretion on costs unless it was exercised unjudiciously or on wrong principles. While costs ordinarily follow the event, a successful party may be deprived of costs where its conduct caused avoidable litigation. The appellant was not the successful party, having settled by agreeing to pay 25% of assessed ground rent. Her conduct prior to suit—refusing payment, ignoring advice from both the respondents and Kampala City Council, and insisting on the 1933 nominal rent despite changed economic and statutory realities—constituted intransigence justifying the costs order against her.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial court's order condemning the appellant to pay costs upheld

Facts

A 99-year leasehold granted in 1912 was subleased in 1933, and the residue assigned in 1955 to the appellant's husband, covering Plots 6 and 6A Market Street. The appellant, as executrix, was expelled from Uganda in 1972 and returned in 1993 to repossess the property. She sought to resume the sublease relationship on the original 1933 terms, tendering rent of Shs. 53/75. The respondents demanded she pay 25% of the ground rent assessed by Kampala City Council and US$500 in management and repossession fees, threatening re-entry. The appellant paid US$300 directly to Kampala City Council without informing the respondents, who advised this was an error since the sublease indemnified her against ground rent claims. Rather than paying her contribution, the appellant filed suit in February 1995. During the hearing the parties partially settled: she agreed to pay 25% of assessed ground rent and the respondents abandoned the re-entry threat. The parties could not agree on costs, which the trial judge resolved against the appellant.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Principal Judge exercised his discretion judiciously when he condemned the appellant to pay the costs of the suit.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal in this Court and the High Court awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Discretion of the Court — Appellate Interference
Where a trial court has exercised its discretion on costs, an appellate court will not interfere unless the discretion was exercised unjudiciously or on wrong principles, or where the reasons given do not constitute good reasons within the meaning of the law.
Costs — Costs Follow the Event — Deprivation for Conduct
Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act costs follow the event and a successful party should not be deprived of costs except for good reason; however, a party may be deprived of costs where its conduct, prior to or during the action, led to litigation which but for that conduct might have been averted.
Costs — Effect of Settlement on Identity of Successful Party
A plaintiff who files suit but settles with the defendant during the hearing cannot be regarded as the successful party for the purpose of awarding costs.
Sublease — Ground Rent — Static Contractual Rates and Economic Realities
It is unreasonable for a sublessee to insist on the supremacy of an original sublease's nominal ground rent in disregard of changed economic realities and statutory obligations, where the controlling local authority assesses ground rent according to law.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Denram Danji Dattan vs Handas Kalidas (1969) 16 EACA 35
  • Denberniotis and Others vs Central Africa Company Ltd (1976) EA 31
  • Campbell Discount Company Ltd vs Brid[ge]
  • Kiska Ltd vs De Angelis (1959) E.A. 6
  • National Pharmacy v Kampala City Council (1979) HCB 256

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ghusalal v Manmilal Raja and Others (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 54 (1 January 2001)
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.