Wakilii

James Mbabazi and Another v Matco Stores Ltd and Another (Reference No 15 of 2004)

Court of Appeal · [2004] UGCA 47 · 2004 Reference Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single judge of the Court of Appeal from the decision of a Taxing Officer on costs
Decision
Reference allowed; Taxing Officer's order on costs set aside and costs awarded to the applicants

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

On a reference from a Taxing Officer who struck out a bill of costs on the applicants' preliminary objection but made no order as to costs, the court held that under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act costs follow the event and a successful party may be deprived of costs only for good reason. The Taxing Officer's order that he made no order as to costs was an exercise of discretion that denied the successful applicants costs without any stated reason, which was not a judicial exercise of discretion and occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The reference was allowed and the respondents ordered to pay costs of the reference and before the Taxing Officer.

Outcome

Reference allowed; Taxing Officer's order on costs set aside and costs awarded to the applicants

Facts

The applicants had instituted Reference No. 60 of 2001 against the decision of a single judge. The full bench of the Court of Appeal heard and dismissed that reference with costs in favour of the respondents. The respondents filed a bill of costs. At the commencement of the taxation, counsel for the applicants raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the bill of costs. The Taxing Officer heard the objection, upheld it and struck out the bill, but made no order as to costs. The applicants, having succeeded on the objection, were thereby denied their costs without any reason being given. The present reference challenged that order on costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer was justified in denying the applicants, as the successful party, their costs without giving any reason.

Orders

  • Reference allowed.
  • Respondents to pay costs of the reference and the costs before the Taxing Officer.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Discretion as to Costs — Costs Follow the Event under Civil Procedure Act s.27
Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act costs follow the event, and a successful party is entitled to costs and may be deprived of them only for good reason.
Costs — Judicial Exercise of Discretion — Duty to Give Reasons
Although an order that the court makes no order as to costs is an exercise of discretion, that discretion must be exercised judicially; denying a successful party costs without subscribing any reason is not a judicial exercise of discretion and may occasion a miscarriage of justice.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kanoblic Group of Companies (U) Ltd v Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1994)
  • BURNE SWAN EDGAR LTD (1993) 1 ch. 211
  • Uganda Transport Co Ltd vs Quta (1985) HCB 28

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

James Mbabazi and Another v Matco Stores Ltd and Another (Reference No 15 of 2004) [2004] UGCA 47 (21 July 2004)
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.