Wakilii

Mugisa Robert v Akugizibwe Isaiah and Another (HCT-01-LD-CA-0026-2024; HCT-01-LD-MA-0105-2015)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 266 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of costs order in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2024
Decision
Application dismissed; costs order in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2024 stands unchanged

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 dismissed an application to review a costs order made in a prior appeal. The applicant sought to shift costs onto his former advocates, alleging professional negligence in filing a fresh suit instead of an application under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Court held that no grounds for review existed: the procedure adopted had been judicially sanctioned in the original appeal judgment, no new evidence emerged, and no error was apparent on the record. The costs order followed the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.

Outcome

Application dismissed; costs order in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2024 stands unchanged

Facts

The applicant purchased land at a court-ordered auction for UGX 13,000,000 from the 1st respondent, a court bailiff. When the sale was set aside as irregular, the applicant's former advocates (2nd respondent) filed a fresh suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court seeking a refund and damages. The trial magistrate entered judgment on admission. On appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment, finding that the defendant had not admitted personal liability and that triable issues existed requiring a full hearing. The Court remitted the matter for rehearing and awarded costs to the successful appellant. The applicant then sought review of the costs order, arguing his former advocates were negligent in filing a fresh suit instead of an application under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act, and that they should bear the costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has established sufficient grounds for this Court to review its judgment in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2024, specifically regarding the order as to costs.
  2. Whether those costs should be shifted to the Applicant's former advocates, the 2nd Respondent.

Orders

  • The application for review and variation of the orders in High Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2024 is hereby dismissed.
  • The costs of this application are awarded to the 2nd Respondent, to be paid by the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Scope and Limitations
Review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules is available only on three narrow grounds: discovery of new and important matter not previously known, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. Review is not a second bite at the cherry or a disguised appeal, and the court must resist invitations to re-argue or re-decide issues fully canvassed in the original judgment.
Costs — Mistake of Counsel — When Costs Should Not Be Shifted to Advocates
The principle that a mistake of counsel should not be visited upon an innocent litigant applies principally to procedural lapses causing prejudice, such as failure to file documents within time. It does not extend to a substantive procedural choice that the appellate court later confirms was legally competent. Where a court has judicially sanctioned the procedure adopted by counsel, that counsel cannot be held negligent for following that procedure.
Costs — Personal Orders Against Advocates — Abuse of Process Distinguished from Legitimate Procedural Choice
Personal costs orders against advocates are reserved for cases involving clear abuse of process or deception. Where counsel chooses a procedure that is ultimately vindicated by the court as permissible, no basis exists to condemn the advocate personally to pay costs, even if an alternative procedure might have been available.
Costs — Costs Follow the Event — Application of Section 27(2) Civil Procedure Act
Under Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, costs shall follow the event unless the court for good reason orders otherwise. Where a party succeeds on appeal and the judgment is set aside, an order awarding costs to the successful party is neither arbitrary nor erroneous but is the direct and logical consequence of the outcome.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (17)

  • Mugubi Steven Banja and Another v Richard Banja and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 84 of 2021)
  • Mohamed Allibhai v W.E. Bukenya Mukasa and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Ladak Abdulla Mohamed Hussein v Griffiths Isingoma Kakiika and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
  • Mulumba Shafique Ssebugwawo v Bugingo Andrew Nganda and 7 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1555 of 2023)
  • Busoga Growers Co-operative Union Ltd v Nsamba & Sons Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 123 of 2000)
  • Namayega Barbra v Etot Denis and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 939 of 2019)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Kyegegwa District Local Government v Aharikundira Margaret (High Court Fort Portal Miscellaneous Application No. 0025 of 2022)
  • Continental Tobacco (U) Ltd v Global Hardware Company Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0017 of 2013)
  • Kamurasi Charles v Accord Properties Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1996)
  • James Bwogi & Sons Enterprises Ltd v Kampala City Council and Another (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 09 of 2017)
  • Francis Micah v Nuwa Walakira (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1994)
  • Regina Bagada v The Cooperative Bank Limited [2000] KALR 373
  • Ladha Kassam & Company Ltd and 2 Others v Zalwango Margaret Nalongo and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1727 of 2022)
  • Dilipkumar P. Patel and 5 Others v Kashyapkumar B. Patel and 11 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 768 of 2021)
  • Goodlock v Cousins [1897] 1 Q.B. 558
  • Bukenya Mohammed v Bemba Gerald (Miscellaneous Application No. 1379 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugisa Robert v Akugizibwe Isaiah and Another (HCT-01-LD-CA-0026-2024; HCT-01-LD-MA-0105-2015) [2026] UGHC 266 (24 March 2026)
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.