Wakilii

Lawrence Kyazze Musiitwa v Eunice Busingye (Civil Appeal 13 of 1990)

Supreme Court · [1991] UGSC 11 · 1991 No Order as to Costs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on settlement of the form of the order as to costs under Rule 34(2)(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, following a civil appeal allowed in part.
Decision
Form of the order settled under Rule 34(2)(c): no order as to costs of the appeal and each party to bear its own costs of the lower court.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 settling the form of its order under Rule 34(2)(c) where the parties could not agree, the Court held that the rule was wide enough to confirm or modify the lower court's order as to costs. Applying section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, that costs follow the event unless the court orders otherwise for good reason, the Court reasoned that as the appeal had been allowed in part and each party had been substantially successful, neither should be left with full costs nor deprived of all costs. It ordered no costs of the appeal and that each party bear its own costs in the lower court.

Outcome

Form of the order settled under Rule 34(2)(c): no order as to costs of the appeal and each party to bear its own costs of the lower court.

Facts

The respondent had sued in the High Court at Kampala and succeeded, being awarded, among other things, costs of the suit on 30 August 1990. The appellant appealed against the whole decision. On 19 April 1991 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part: it set aside the order for recovery of vacant possession and substituted a declaration that the respondent was the legal owner of the suit property with the Government's leasehold interest terminated by re-entry, while dismissing the appeal against the awards of mesne profits and damages. The Court made no order as to costs of the appeal and gave no order regarding the costs awarded in the High Court. The parties' advocates could not agree on the form of the final order, particularly its treatment of costs, and the matter came before the Court under Rule 34(2)(c) for the order to be settled.

Issues

  1. Whether, in settling the form of its order under Rule 34(2)(c), the Court had power to confirm or modify the High Court's order as to costs.
  2. What order as to costs of the appeal and of the lower court ought to be made where the appeal had been allowed only in part.

Orders

  • The form of the order under Rule 33(1) to be as in the draft order prepared by advocates for the respondent in the appeal.
  • No order be made as to costs of the appeal.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the lower court.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs follow the event under section 27(1) Civil Procedure Act
Under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the costs of any action, cause, matter or issue follow the event unless the court for good reason orders otherwise; where each party has been substantially successful, costs following the event may mean that each party bears its own costs.
Civil Procedure — Appellate practice — Settlement of the form of order under Rule 34(2)(c)
Where the parties cannot agree on the form of the final order, the court's power under Rule 34(2)(c) is wide enough to enable it to make any necessary order, including one confirming or modifying the order of the lower court as to costs.
Civil Procedure — Costs on appeal — Effect of partial success
Where an appeal is allowed only in part such that the successful party below obtains in the final result only approximately half of what was sought, it is improper either to deprive that party of all costs below or to leave it with the full award; an apportionment of costs is appropriate.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Act (cap.65) s.27(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court rule 34(2)(a)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court rule 34(2)(c)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court rule 33(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court rule 84

Cases cited (2)

  • Pioneer Garage Ltd v Barclays Bank D.C.O. (Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1968)
  • National Pharmacy Ltd v Kampala City Council [1980] HCB 51

Cases citing this judgment (4)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lawrence Kyazze Musiitwa v Eunice Busingye (Civil Appeal 13 of 1990) [1991] UGSC 11 (19 April 1991)
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.