Munazzanati Al Dawa Al Islamiya v Zuena said Hassan and Another (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 173 of 2021)
Observed later treatment
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 a Registrar has discretion to award costs even without a specific request from the successful party, and costs can be awarded in execution proceedings. However, costs must be taxed in accordance with the Advocates Act before a specific sum is imposed. The award of UGX 1,000,000 was set aside and the Respondents were directed to file a bill of costs for taxation.
Outcome
Application partly allowed — costs award set aside but Respondents entitled to file bill of costs for taxation
Facts
The Respondents were former employees of the Applicant who obtained an award from a Labour Officer on 6 June 2019 for UGX 19,040,000 as severance pay, payment in lieu of notice, and compensatory orders. The Respondents filed Miscellaneous Application No. 139 of 2019 to execute the award. The Applicant informed the Registrar that it had filed an appeal and sought to stay execution. The Registrar ruled that no stay application had been filed for nearly two years, that an appeal does not automatically stay execution, and granted the execution application with costs of UGX 1,000,000. The Applicant then filed the present application to set aside the costs award, arguing that costs had not been prayed for and that no costs are provided for in execution proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the Registrar erred in awarding costs when the Respondents had not specifically prayed for costs.
- Whether costs can be awarded in execution proceedings.
- Whether the quantum of UGX 1,000,000 in costs should have been taxed before being awarded.
Orders
- The order awarding UGX 1,000,000 in costs is set aside.
- The Respondents are directed to file a bill of costs for the execution of LDMA 139 of 2019 for taxation.
- No order as to costs of this application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 Rule 8
- Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.27(1)
- Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act Cap. 227 s.12
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 Rule 4
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 Rule 8
- Advocates Act Cap. 295 s.38
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Cost) Rules Regulation 38
Cases cited (7)
- SDV Transami v Nsibambi (2008) ULR 501
- Mugisha and Another v Mpiima [2020] UGHCLD 33
- Katon Manufacturers Ltd v Liaog Ning Middle East and Another [2011] UGCommC 200
- Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] UGSC 2
- Premchant Reichard Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa No. 3 (1972) EA 162
- UTC v Outa [1985] HCB 27
- Kalule v Deustche Gesellschaft Fuer Internationale Zuzammenarbeit (GIZ) GMBH [2023] UGIC 89
Cases citing this judgment (1)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.