Wakilii

Mutahi Jacenta v Twegarukemu Patrick and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No 0010 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1416 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court decision dismissing land claim
Decision
Appeal dismissed; trial court's award of costs to respondents upheld but no costs awarded for the appeal itself

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 the appeal against the award of costs to the respondents. The court held that the appeal was filed in time, applying Section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act which excludes time taken for preparation of the record. On the merits, the court declined to interfere with the trial magistrate's discretionary award of costs, finding no error of law or principle. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the appeal to preserve family relations.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial court's award of costs to respondents upheld but no costs awarded for the appeal itself

Facts

The appellant sued her three brothers for trespass on three pieces of land at Igabiro Village, claiming ownership. The respondents denied the claim and averred that the land was temporarily allocated to the appellant to cater for their tuition and related needs. The parties are siblings and beneficiaries of the estate of the late Tumusiime Oliver who died in 2002. After his death, the parties sat down and distributed pieces of land among themselves pursuant to a written agreement. The Chief Magistrate dismissed the land claim, finding that the respondents were not trespassers to the suit lands of the estate and that the appellant was not the lawful owner. The Chief Magistrate awarded costs to the respondents. The appellant appealed solely against the award of costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was filed within the statutory time limit under Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. Whether the Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when he awarded costs to the Respondents.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection that the appeal was filed out of time overruled.
  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Computation of Limitation Period — Exclusion of Time for Preparation of Record
In computation of the period of limitation for filing an appeal, the time taken by the court or registrar in making a copy of the decree or order appealed against shall be excluded under Section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Where a letter requesting for the certified record of proceedings and judgment has been filed in conjunction with a memorandum of appeal within the statutory time frame, the provisions of Section 79(2) are triggered and the appeal is deemed to be filed in time.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Trial Court — Principles Governing Award of Costs
Under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs of and incidental to all suits are in the discretion of the court. The general principle is that costs follow the event and are awarded to the successful party unless the court for good reason orders otherwise. An appellate court should not review the exercise of discretion by a trial court simply because it would have exercised that discretion differently, and will only interfere where the trial court acted on an entirely wrong principle of law or exercised its discretion erroneously.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction — Standard of Review — Discretionary Orders
Trial judicial officers are better suited to exercise their discretion as to costs as they have a better feel for the case having heard the substantive trial. An appellate court will not interfere with an award of costs unless the appellant demonstrates that the trial court acted on an entirely wrong principle of law or exercised its discretion erroneously.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Abdul Hameed Saif v Ali Mohammed Sholan (1995) EACA 270
  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co (1968) EA 123
  • Ephraim Ongom and Another v Francis Binega Donge (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 0010 of 1987)
  • Denvram Nanji v Haridas Kalidas Dawda (16 EACA 35)
  • Obonyo v Municipal Council of Kisumu (1971) EA 91
  • Crown Beverages Limited v Sendu Edwards (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. I of 2005)
  • Johnsey Estates v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] EWCA Civ 535

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mutahi Jacenta v Twegarukemu Patrick and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No 0010 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 1416 (13 November 2025)
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.