Wakilii

Muhindo and 8 Others v Kithende Hotels Project (Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 610 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for set-off of taxed costs arising from execution proceedings following dismissal and striking out of related applications
Decision
Application allowed; execution orders set aside; motor vehicle released; applicants entitled to refund and may execute for balance of UGX 22,985,500

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 cross decrees for taxed costs exist between the same parties in separate suits and the conditions under Order 22 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules are satisfied, the court may set off the smaller sum from the larger sum. The doctrine of res judicata did not apply because the set-off issue was not materially determined by the Deputy Registrar. The execution orders were set aside, the attached motor vehicle was ordered released, and the applicants were granted a refund and entitled to execute for the balance after set-off.

Outcome

Application allowed; execution orders set aside; motor vehicle released; applicants entitled to refund and may execute for balance of UGX 22,985,500

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 001 of 2022 against the applicants for recovery of land. The applicants filed Misc. Application No. 11 of 2022 to strike out the suit as res judicata, which was dismissed with costs for lack of proper service. The applicants then filed Misc. Application No. 091 of 2021 seeking the same remedy, which was allowed with costs, and the main suit was struck out with costs to the applicants. The respondent's costs in Misc. Application No. 11 of 2022 were taxed at UGX 5,906,000. The respondent subsequently applied for execution, and the Deputy Registrar granted an order attaching two motor vehicles of the 9th applicant. The applicants' costs in Civil Suit No. 001 of 2022 and Misc. Application No. 091 of 2022 were later taxed at UGX 24,105,000 and UGX 4,786,500 respectively, totaling UGX 28,891,500. The applicants then filed this application seeking to set off the respondent's taxed costs from their own taxed costs and to have the execution orders set aside and the motor vehicles released.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises sufficient grounds for the court to set off the taxed costs of the respondent from those of the applicants.
  2. Whether Execution orders issued in Execution Application No. 026 of 2023 should be set aside.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The taxed costs against the applicants in Misc. Application No. 011 of 2022 is set off from the taxed costs against the respondent in Civil Suit No. 001 of 2022 and Misc. Application 091 of 2022.
  • The applicants shall automatically take out an execution order for payment of UGX. 22,985,500/= as the remainder of the decrees in Civil Suit No. 001 of 2022 and Misc. Application 091 of 2022 against the respondent.
  • The orders of the learned Deputy Registrar in Execution Application No. 26 of 2023 are hereby set aside.
  • The Court Bailiff appointed to execute orders in Execution Application No. 026 of 2023 is hereby ordered to unconditionally release the 9th applicant's Motor Vehicle Registration No. UAT 143Q Toyota Hilux Double Cabin with immediate effect.
  • The applicants are entitled to a refund of UGX. 5,906,000/= paid into this court.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs for this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Res Judicata — Application of Doctrine — Matters Not Materially Determined
The doctrine of res judicata does not apply where the matter raised in the subsequent application was not materially or substantially an issue for determination in the earlier proceeding, even if the earlier proceeding provided the parties an opportunity to agree on the matter.
Set-Off — Conditions for Granting Set-Off Under Order 22 Rule 15
Under Order 22 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a set-off may be granted where: (i) there exist cross decrees in separate suits for the payment of two sums of money passed between the same parties and capable of execution at the same time by the court; (ii) the decree-holder in one suit is the judgment debtor in the other and each party fills the same character in both suits; (iii) the two or more decrees are capable of execution at the same time; and (iv) the sums under the decrees are definite.
Execution — Set-Off — Procedure Where Cross Decrees for Costs Exist
Where cross decrees for taxed costs exist between the same parties and the conditions for set-off are met, the court shall set off the smaller sum from the larger sum, and execution may be taken out only by the holder of the decree for the larger sum for so much as remains after deducting the smaller sum.
Procedural Irregularities — Substantive Justice Over Technical Defects
Where an application omits to cite any law at all or cites the wrong law but the jurisdiction to grant the order exists, the irregularity or omission can be ignored and the correct law inserted, in order that substantive justice may be administered without undue regard to procedural lapses.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Godfrey Magezi v National Medical Stores & 2 Others (Misc. HCCS No. 636 of 2016)
  • Kamunye & Others v Pioneer General Assurance Society Ltd [1971] EA 263
  • Karia and Another v Attorney General and Others [2005] 1 EA 83
  • Onzia Elizabeth v Shaban Fadul (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2013)
  • Saggu v Road Master UG Ltd [2000] EA LR 255
  • Re Christine Namatovu Tebajjukira [1992-93] HCB 85
  • Kingstone Enterprises Ltd and 2 Others v Metropolitan Properties Ltd (HCMA No. 314 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muhindo and 8 Others v Kithende Hotels Project (Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 610 (28 June 2024)
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.