Wakilii

Katwesige Winston Muntukwonka v Nkosi Capital Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2635 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 88 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of ruling and orders arising from withdrawal of main suit and subsequent taxation proceedings
Decision
Application for review partly allowed. Original ruling reviewed to award costs of withdrawn main suit to applicant. Assistant Registrar's orders dismissing taxation application upheld. Applicant directed to file fresh taxation application.

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 the trial court's omission to pronounce on costs when allowing withdrawal of the main suit constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant, as the successful party upon withdrawal, was entitled to costs under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the Assistant Registrar's orders dismissing the taxation application and expunging the extracted order were upheld, as the extracted order contradicted the original ruling by inserting costs provisions not awarded by the court. An order that departs from the ruling is a nullity and cannot form the basis of a taxation application.

Outcome

Application for review partly allowed. Original ruling reviewed to award costs of withdrawn main suit to applicant. Assistant Registrar's orders dismissing taxation application upheld. Applicant directed to file fresh taxation application.

Facts

The applicant was sued as the 8th defendant in Civil Suit No. 305 of 2020. The plaintiff (respondent) filed a notice of withdrawal on 18 January 2024, which the applicant challenged on procedural grounds. The respondent then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 614 of 2024 seeking leave to withdraw. On 21 June 2024, the trial court allowed the withdrawal with no order as to costs of the application itself, but was silent on costs of the main suit. The applicant extracted an order stating that the suit was withdrawn subject to the plaintiff's liability for costs, which contradicted the ruling. The applicant filed Taxation Application No. 0261 of 2024 based on this extracted order. On 25 September 2024, the Assistant Registrar expunged the extracted order and dismissed the taxation application on grounds that the order was irregular and misrepresented the original ruling. The applicant then filed this application seeking review of both the original ruling's silence on costs and the Assistant Registrar's orders.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses grounds for review of the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 614 of 2024.
  2. Whether the Assistant Registrar's orders expunging the extracted order and dismissing Taxation Application No. 0261 of 2024 should be set aside.

Orders

  • The ruling and order in Miscellaneous Application No. 614 of 2024 are reviewed to include that Civil Suit No. 305 of 2020 is withdrawn with costs to the 8th Defendant/Applicant.
  • The orders of the Assistant Registrar dated 25th September 2024 expunging the extracted order and dismissing Taxation Application No. 0261 of 2024 are upheld.
  • The Applicant is to file a new application for taxation and a fresh bill of costs to be taxed on its merits.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments and Orders — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Omission to Award Costs on Withdrawal of Suit
Where a court allows withdrawal of a suit but omits to pronounce on costs of the main suit, such omission constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the successful party is entitled to costs under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act unless the court expressly orders otherwise.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Withdrawal of Suit — Entitlement to Costs
Upon withdrawal of a suit under Order 25 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the defendant is entitled to costs unless the court for good reason orders otherwise, and costs follow the event under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. The person responsible for the loss or costs bears the burden of payment.
Civil Procedure — Orders and Decrees — Conformity with Judgment — Nullity of Inconsistent Order
An extracted order or decree must strictly conform to the judgment or ruling from which it is drawn. Where an order contradicts or departs from the ruling, it is a nullity to the extent of the inconsistency and cannot form a lawful basis for subsequent proceedings. The principle quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum applies: that which is a nullity produces no effect.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Irregular Order as Basis for Taxation
A taxation application founded on an irregular or invalid order that misrepresents the court's ruling is incompetent ab initio. The proper recourse where a party is dissatisfied with a ruling is to apply for review, not to alter the orders in the extracted order and proceed to act on the defective order.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Powers of Registrar — Review of Registrar's Orders
The power of the High Court to review its own decisions under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules extends to orders of the Registrar.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (5)

  • Dr. Lam Lagoro James v Muni University (HCMC No. 007 of 2016)
  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (S.C. Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Jenniffer Behange and 2 Others v School Outfitters Ltd (CACA No. 53 of 1999)
  • Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 11
  • Wilkinson v Wilkinson [1958] 2 All E.R. 179

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katwesige_Winston_Muntukwonka_v_Nkosi_Capital_Ltd_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2635_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_88_(13_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.