Wakilii

Kabiswa Jimmy and Another v Senkaali Mulondo (Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 94 · 2025 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court decision dismissing suit for lack of jurisdiction
Decision
Appeal allowed; costs order in lower court set aside and costs awarded to appellants in the original suit

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 High Court held that where a suit is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the successful party is entitled to costs under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act unless the court gives good reasons otherwise. The trial magistrate erred by ordering each party to bear its own costs without providing reasons for departing from the general rule that costs follow the event.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; costs order in lower court set aside and costs awarded to appellants in the original suit

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 30 of 2016 at Entebbe Chief Magistrate's Court. The appellants were added as third parties to the suit. On 8 December 2022, the trial magistrate dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction and ordered each party to bear its own costs. The appellants, being the successful parties, appealed against the costs order, arguing that they should have been awarded costs as the successful parties. The respondent did not oppose the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by denying costs to the appellants upon dismissal of the suit.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The decision of the trial court ordering each party to pay their own costs in Entebbe Civil Suit No. 30 of 2016 is set aside.
  • The respondent/plaintiff should pay costs of the suit in Entebbe Civil Suit No. 30 of 2016.
  • The appellants should meet their costs for this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Award of Costs — Costs Following the Event
Under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, costs of any action shall follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders, and this principle applies even where the court lacks jurisdiction to try the suit.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Duty to Give Reasons
Where a court exercises its discretion to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event, it must give reasons for doing so; failure to provide reasons when denying costs to a successful party constitutes an error.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction — Costs
A court that dismisses a suit for lack of jurisdiction retains the power under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act to make a decision on costs, and the successful party is ordinarily entitled to costs.

Legislation cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabiswa_Jimmy_and_Another_v_Senkaali_Mulondo_(Civil_Appeal_No._04_of_2023)_[2025]_UGHCLD_94_(17_June_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.