Wakilii

Nyombi Mukiibi v Musoke and 8 Others (Miscellaneous Application 125 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 203 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal and extension of time arising from an interlocutory ruling on costs following a re-amendment of the plaint
Decision
Application dismissed; head suit to proceed to pre-trial conference

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

Held that leave to appeal from an order on costs requires a stronger case where the order was made in exercise of judicial discretion. Courts have wide discretionary power under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act to award costs at any interlocutory stage. The phrase 'costs shall follow the event' is not limited to the conclusion of the head suit but applies to the conclusion of any interlocutory matter. The applicant failed to establish arguable grounds meriting serious judicial consideration. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; head suit to proceed to pre-trial conference

Facts

The applicant filed the head suit in 2014 seeking transfer of land title. After initial amendments in 2016 adding nine defendants, pre-trial processes were completed. In August 2023, applicant sought to re-amend the plaint a second time to add six more parties. Court allowed the re-amendment but awarded costs thrown away to the respondents for all work done prior to the ruling, except instruction fees. The basis for awarding costs was that the applicant's failure to conduct due diligence timeously resulted in wasted court time and legal work after pleadings had closed and scheduling was complete. Respondents filed a bill of costs. Applicant then sought leave to appeal and extension of time, arguing that costs cannot be awarded before conclusion of the main suit and that the order violated his right to a fair hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has shown sufficient reason to warrant that he be granted leave to appeal and an extension of time within which to appeal

Orders

  • Leave to appeal disallowed.
  • Application for extension of time rendered moot.
  • No order for costs made.
  • Head suit set down for pre-trial conference scheduling on October 24, 2024 at 10:00 am.
  • Parties directed to file Joint Scheduling Memorandum and Joint Trial Bundle seven days before that date.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Discretionary Orders — Standard of Review
Leave to appeal from an order in civil proceedings will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration, but where the order from which it is sought to appeal was made in the exercise of judicial discretion, a rather stronger case will have to be made out.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretionary Power of Court — Scope
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act confers wide discretionary powers on a court or judge to determine by whom, out of what property, and to what extent costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for that purpose.
Civil Procedure — Costs — 'Costs Follow the Event' — Application to Interlocutory Proceedings
The phrase 'costs shall follow the event' in section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act is not limited to the conclusion of the head suit but applies also to the conclusion of any interlocutory cause, matter, or issue. Costs shall be paid to the successful party who can only be deprived of costs when it is shown that their conduct, either prior to or during the course of the suit, matter, or issue, led to litigation or proceedings which, but for their own conduct, might have been avoided or averted.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Costs Thrown Away
Upon an interlocutory application to amend pleadings, it is open to a court or judge in the exercise of their discretionary power to award costs thrown away — to wit, to order a party to pay wasted costs of either side for their conduct that has resulted in proceedings or any part thereof that have become ineffective.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd and Ors. v Dresdner Bank A.G [1971] EA 17
  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achans [1978] HCB 297
  • Kiska Ltd v De Angelis [1969] EA 8

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nyombi_Mukiibi_v_Musoke_and_8_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_125_of_2024)_[2024]_UGHCLD_203_(7_August_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.