Wakilii

Mukhama v Namatiti (HCT-04-CV-CA-0007-2001)

High Court · [2009] UGHCCD 3 · 2009 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to High Court from Chief Magistrate's decision on costs only, Chief Magistrate having allowed first appeal from Grade II Magistrate
Decision
Appeal dismissed with affirmation of Chief Magistrate's costs order

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 a successful party may be deprived of costs where their prior conduct contributed to the litigation. The appellant's illegal bypassing of the electricity meter led to disconnections and the respondent's unlawful expenditure on bribes. Both parties engaged in improper conduct. The court upheld the Chief Magistrate's costs order that each party bear own costs in the interests of justice, finding the appellant should not benefit from his wrongdoing. Appeal dismissed with costs to respondent.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with affirmation of Chief Magistrate's costs order

Facts

The respondent sued the appellant in Grade II Magistrate's Court for refund of 90% share of money spent reconnecting electricity to their shared building. The parties had agreed the respondent would pay 10% and appellant 90% of power bills. The appellant repeatedly bypassed the UEB meter and illegally tapped power, causing disconnections. The respondent paid reconnection costs and bribes to UEB officials. The trial magistrate ordered the appellant to pay his 90% share. On first appeal, the Chief Magistrate allowed the appeal and set aside damages because the bribes constituted criminal conduct, but ordered each party bear own costs given the peculiar circumstances. The appellant appealed to High Court on the costs order only.

Issues

  1. Whether the Chief Magistrate properly exercised discretion in ordering each party to bear own costs despite the appellant being successful on appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.
  • Costs order of the Chief Magistrate (each party to bear own costs) upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion to Award Costs — General Principle
Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event and a successful party is generally entitled to costs unless there is good cause to depart from this rule, and the court must exercise its discretion judicially.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Deprivation of Costs — Misconduct of Successful Party
A successful party may be deprived of costs where their conduct, either prior to or during litigation, led to the litigation which might otherwise have been avoided, or where awarding costs would allow them to benefit from their own wrongdoing.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Improper Conduct by Both Parties
Where both parties engaged in improper or potentially criminal conduct that gave rise to the litigation, the court may properly exercise discretion to order each party bear own costs in the interests of justice, even where one party is technically successful.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (7)

  • Donald Campbell v Pellock [1923] AC 732
  • J.K. Patel v Spear Motors Ltd [1993] 1 KALR 40
  • Rwantale v Rwabutoga [1988-90] HCB 100
  • Francis Butagira v Deborah Namukasa [1992-1993] HCB 98
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co Ltd [1981] HCB 35
  • Prince Neuza Rukidi v Prince Solomon Gafabusa Iguru & Others (SSCA No. 18 of 1994)
  • Devram Nanji Dattan v H.K. Dawda (1949) 6 EACA 335

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukhama Vs Namatiti (HCT-04-CV-CA-0007-2001) [2009] UGHCCD 3 (10 March 2009)
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.