Wakilii

Hastwell v Air Travel (Charters) Ltd (Civil Case No. 106 of 1951 (Mombasa))

East African Court of Appeal · [1951] EACA 334 · 1951 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of Deputy Registrar as taxing officer regarding costs on counter-claim
Decision
Appeal dismissed; defendant entitled to Supreme Court scale costs on counter-claim

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 court held that a counter-claim must be taken as a whole to ascertain the amount recovered, including sums set off against the plaintiff's claim. The defendant recovered Sh. 2,104 in total (Sh. 1,106 judgment plus Sh. 998 set-off), exceeding subordinate court jurisdiction. Rule 42 does not apply to counter-claims because a defendant pleading a counter-claim does not select the tribunal. The defendant was entitled to costs on the Supreme Court scale.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; defendant entitled to Supreme Court scale costs on counter-claim

Facts

The plaintiff sued the defendant for wrongful dismissal and was awarded Sh. 6,998 damages. The defendant counter-claimed for breach of contract and recovery of money owed, and was awarded Sh. 2,104 (Sh. 1,106 damages plus Sh. 998 admitted debt). The court set off Sh. 998 from the plaintiff's award and gave judgment for the plaintiff for Sh. 6,000 with costs, and judgment for the defendant for Sh. 1,106 on the counter-claim with costs. The Deputy Registrar as taxing officer allowed the defendant costs on the Supreme Court scale. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, the defendant should only receive Subordinate Court costs because the judgment on the counter-claim was only Sh. 1,106, below the Supreme Court's minimum jurisdiction.

Issues

  1. Whether costs on a counter-claim should be taxed on the Supreme Court scale or Subordinate Court scale under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
  2. Whether the amount recovered on a counter-claim should be calculated as the judgment sum alone or include amounts set off against the plaintiff's claim.
  3. Whether Rule 42 of the Rules of Court applies to counter-claims.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the defendant.
  • Defendant entitled to costs of counter-claim on Supreme Court scale.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Counter-claims — Calculation of Amount Recovered
A counter-claim being in effect a cross-action must be taken as a whole to ascertain the amount recovered thereunder, including both the judgment sum and any amounts set off against the plaintiff's claim.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Rule 42 Rules of Court — Application to Counter-claims
Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, which limits costs to the subordinate court scale for matters that could have been brought in a subordinate court, does not apply to counter-claims because a defendant who pleads a counter-claim does not select the tribunal.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Counter-claims — Entitlement to Supreme Court Scale
A defendant who succeeds on a counter-claim in a Supreme Court action is entitled to costs on the Supreme Court scale occasioned by the counter-claim, regardless of the amount recovered, because the defendant did not select the tribunal.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Rules of Court Rule 42
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance s.11
  • County Courts Act 1867 s.5
  • County Courts Act 1934 s.47(1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Chatfield v Sedgwick (4 CPD 459)
  • Stooke v Taylor (1880) 5 QBD 569
  • Amon v Bobbett (22 QBD 543)
  • Blake v Appleyard (3 Ex D 195)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hastwell v Air Travel (Charters) Ltd (Civil Case No. 106 of 1951 (Mombasa)) [1951] EACA 334 (1 January 1951)
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.