Wakilii

Hajji Isahaka Nsisinkano v Lutaaya Alamanzani and Others (Civil Suit 57 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1347 · 2025 Costs Awarded to 1st Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for land ownership and fraud allegations, withdrawn by plaintiff with ruling on costs
Decision
Suit withdrawn by consent with costs awarded to 1st defendant only

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

Held that upon withdrawal of a suit after the defendant has filed a written statement of defence, costs follow the event unless good reason is shown otherwise. Family cohesion and reconciliation, while important, do not constitute good reason to deny a successful defendant costs. The plaintiff must pay costs to the 1st defendant. Suit withdrawn with no order as to costs against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants.

Outcome

Suit withdrawn by consent with costs awarded to 1st defendant only

Facts

The plaintiff filed suit against four defendants seeking declarations of ownership over land described as Bulemezi Block 158 plot 1215 at Lusenke, alleging fraud in the registration of the 3rd defendant's name on the title and negligence by the 4th defendant (Commissioner Land Registration). The parties are close family members: the plaintiff is the father of the 1st defendant and father-in-law of the 3rd defendant. On 3 September 2025, plaintiff's counsel informed the court that the parties had decided to pursue an out-of-court settlement in the spirit of family reconciliation. The plaintiff sought withdrawal without costs. The 1st defendant objected, arguing that costs should follow the event under Order 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The 3rd defendant consented to withdrawal of both the suit and his counterclaim without costs. The court granted withdrawal but reserved the question of costs to the 1st defendant for determination.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st defendant should be awarded costs upon withdrawal of the suit.

Orders

  • Civil Suit No. 57 of 2022 is hereby withdrawn against all the defendants with no order as to costs against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants.
  • The 3rd defendant's counterclaim against the plaintiff is hereby withdrawn with no order as to costs.
  • The plaintiff's prayer to deny the 1st defendant costs as a result of withdrawal of the suit is declined.
  • The plaintiff shall pay costs of the suit to the 1st defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Withdrawal of Suit — Costs — Mandatory Award After Defence Filed
Upon withdrawal of a suit after the defendant has filed a written statement of defence, Order 25 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs unless the court orders otherwise for good reason.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Costs Follow the Event
The award of costs is within the discretion of the court and costs must follow the event unless the court orders otherwise for good reason. The discretion must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Compensatory Nature — Not Punitive
Costs are compensatory in nature, intended to reimburse the successful party for reasonable expenses incurred during litigation. They are not punitive. A successful litigant may be deprived of costs only in exceptional circumstances and for good cause.
Civil Procedure — Withdrawal of Suit — Family Reconciliation Not Good Reason to Deny Costs
Family cohesion and reconciliation between parties who are close relatives, while important, do not constitute good reason to deny a defendant costs upon withdrawal of a suit where the defendant has filed a defence and incurred expenses.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Iyamulemye David v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2013)
  • Eddie Kwizera v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2008)
  • Besigye Kizza v Museveni Yoweri and Electoral Commission (Presidential Election No. 1 of 2001)
  • SDV Transami Vs. Nsibambi Enterprises Ltd (2008) HCB 94

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.

Hajji Isahaka Nsisinkano v Lutaaya Alamanzani and Others (Civil Suit 57 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 1347 (8 December 2025)
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.