Wakilii

Kabaka of Buganda v Male H. Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka (Misc. Application No. 675 of 2017)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 309 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of costs order following successful stay of execution application
Decision
Application for review 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

Held that an application for review must meet the statutory grounds in Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Where a court has exercised its discretion in awarding costs to a losing party, the proper remedy is appeal, not review. The realisation that a bill of costs is exaggerated does not constitute new evidence warranting review. The application was filed 62 days after the impugned order, exceeding the 14-day time limit in Order 46 Rule 1(2). Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The Kabaka of Buganda successfully obtained a stay of execution in Misc. Application No. 395 of 2017. The presiding judge, Hon. Lady Justice P. Basaza-Wasswa, granted the stay but ordered the successful applicant to pay costs to the respondent, Male H. Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka. The Kabaka initially filed a notice of appeal against the costs order on 17 July 2017 but withdrew it. Mabirizi then filed a bill of costs claiming over UGX 13 billion, which the Registrar dismissed. The Kabaka then filed this application for review on 14 September 2017, alleging that the costs order was erroneous and being abused. Mabirizi filed the main cause and related applications as a self-represented litigant but in his bill of costs claimed professional fees, solicitors' fees, and compensatory allowances totalling over UGX 13 billion. The Kabaka argued that this revealed Mabirizi's hidden intention to profit from the litigation in contravention of the Advocates Act. Mabirizi opposed the application, arguing it was filed out of time, that the applicant lacked locus after filing an appeal, and that the matter was res judicata.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is sufficient to grant an order for review.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Proper Grounds — Discretionary Award of Costs
Where a court has exercised its discretionary power to award costs under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the proper remedy for a party aggrieved by that exercise of discretion is appeal, not review. Review is not available to challenge the exercise of judicial discretion, even if that discretion was exercised wrongly.
Civil Procedure — Review — New Evidence — Bill of Costs Not New Evidence
The discovery that a bill of costs filed pursuant to a costs order is exaggerated or contains illegal claims does not constitute new and important evidence warranting review of the costs order. Such exaggeration can be addressed through proper legal arguments before the taxing master during the taxation process.
Civil Procedure — Review — Time Limits — Mandatory 14-Day Period
An application for review under Order 46 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules must be filed within 14 days of the impugned order. Filing after 62 days constitutes unreasonable delay and renders the application incompetent. Equity aids the vigilant.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Court's Discretion — Award to Losing Party
Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act confers on courts a wide discretion to award costs, including to a party who was not entirely successful. While costs ordinarily follow the event under Section 27(2), the court may for good reason order otherwise. The exercise of this discretion is judicial and will not be interfered with absent an appeal.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (27)

  • Kolokola Kaloli v Nduga Robert (Miscellaneous Application No. 47 of 2014)
  • Shell (U) Ltd v Rock Petroleum (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2010)
  • Joyce L. Kusulakweguya v Hader Somaru & Najib Mubiru (Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 2007)
  • Nakabugo v. Attorney General [1967] EA 60
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd (1979)
  • Dr. James Rwanyarare & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 11 of 1997)
  • Abdala Ramathan v Agony Swaib (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 67 of 2016)
  • Nyamogo and Nyamogo Advocates vs. Kago [2001] 2 EA 173
  • Jennifer Bihangye & 2 Ors v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)
  • Devram Davji v Haridas Kalidas Dawda (1949) 16 EACA 35
  • Donald Campbell and Co. Ltd v Pollack [1927] AC 732
  • Hoima District NGO Forum v Mwingi Musonoli (High Court Civil Application No. 13 of 2013)
  • Bagamuhanda and 2 Others v UEB (In Liquidation) (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 62 of 2008)
  • Independent Medical Legal Unit Vs. AG of Kenya E.A .C.J (Appellate Jurisdiction) No.2/2012
  • MK Creditors v Owora Patrick (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 143 of 2015)
  • Wakera v Owor (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2016)
  • Orient Bank v Zaabwe (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Mubiikke v UEB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Wadri v Nuru (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2014)
  • Nileways v KCCA (Commercial Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1077 of 2013)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board vs. Jaffer Brothers [1999] 1 EA 12
  • Ritter v. Godfrey [1919] All E.R. Rep. 714
  • African Continental Bank vs. Mnamani [1991] NWLR (part 186) 486
  • Mwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 6 of 2011)
  • Attorney General v Oriental Construction Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 19 of 1990)
  • Kanyomozi v Motor Mart (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 134 of 2014)
  • Ndawula v Hirra Traders (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 210 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabaka of Buganda v Male H. Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka (Misc. Application No. 675 of 2017) [2018] UGHCCD 309 (8 June 2018)
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.