Wakilii

Mistry v De Souza and Others (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1937)

East African Court of Appeal · [1939] EACA 19 · 1939 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of H.M. Supreme Court of Kenya concerning costs in licensing court proceedings
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to respondents

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 Court held that respondents who were members of a licensing court were entitled to costs even though the Crown conducted their defence through the Acting Solicitor General. The Crown has the right to appear by counsel in cases where persons in a public capacity are subject to proceedings in which the Crown has an interest. The respondents were entitled to taxation of their costs and to have the taxed costs paid by the appellant.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to respondents

Facts

The appellant brought proceedings against members of a licensing court. The defence was conducted by the Acting Solicitor General on behalf of the respondents. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant then argued that no costs should be awarded to the respondents since they had incurred no expense in resisting the appeal, as the Crown had provided legal representation through the Acting Solicitor General. The court was required to determine whether costs could be awarded in such circumstances under section 66 of the Liquor Ordinance, 1934, as amended.

Issues

  1. Whether costs should be awarded to respondents who were members of a licensing court when their defence was conducted by the Acting Solicitor General without expense to them.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Appellant to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Crown representation of public officials — Entitlement to costs
Where the Crown appears by counsel to defend persons acting in a public capacity in proceedings in which the Crown has an interest, those persons remain entitled to an award of costs against the unsuccessful party notwithstanding that they incurred no personal expense in the defence.
Licensing Courts — Costs in legal proceedings — Statutory provision for payment
Under section 66 of the Liquor Ordinance, 1934, as amended, costs incurred by members of a licensing court in connection with legal proceedings shall be paid by the treasurer out of the revenue of the Colony, unless the court orders such costs to be borne by the opposite party.
Crown interest in proceedings — Right to appear by counsel
The Crown has the right to appear by counsel in cases where persons in a public capacity are subject to proceedings in which the Crown has an interest, including proceedings involving legislation regarding the control of the sale of liquor where an order for payment of costs out of the revenue of the Colony might be made.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Liquor Ordinance, 1934 s.66
  • Liquor (Amendment) Ordinance, 1935 s.25

Cases cited (1)

  • Rex v The Archbishop of Canterbury [1903] 1 KB 289

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mistry v De Souza and Others (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1937) [1939] EACA 19 (1 January 1939)
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.