Wakilii

Obura Geoffrey and Others v Alunyu Eresinia (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2021)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1380 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court order allowing withdrawal of land claim with each party bearing own costs
Decision
Appeal struck out as incompetent and dismissed on merit with costs to the respondent

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 an order allowing withdrawal of a suit under Order 25 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, with each party bearing own costs, is not appealable as of right. Such an order is discretionary and does not constitute a decree. The appeal was incompetent and struck out. On the merits, the court found no error in the Magistrate's exercise of discretion, as the appellants had consented to the withdrawal terms.

Outcome

Appeal struck out as incompetent and dismissed on merit with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent filed a land claim seeking a declaration of ownership over approximately 4 acres in Oyam District. The appellants filed a defence and counterclaim asserting ownership through bush clearing. On the first hearing date, the respondent's counsel applied to withdraw the suit, stating it had been erroneously filed as the matter had already been decided by the LCIII Court. The Magistrate asked the appellants if they objected to the withdrawal with each party bearing own costs. The appellants, present without counsel, consented. The Magistrate allowed the withdrawal on those terms but made no order on the counterclaim. The appellants appealed, challenging the costs order and alleging dismissal of their counterclaim.

Issues

  1. Whether an order allowing withdrawal of a suit with each party bearing own costs is appealable as of right.
  2. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in allowing withdrawal without awarding costs to the appellants.
  3. Whether the trial Magistrate dismissed the appellants' counterclaim.

Orders

  • Appeal struck out as incompetent.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • Costs to be paid jointly and severally by the appellants to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Right of Appeal — Orders Appealable as of Right
An order allowing withdrawal of a suit under Order 25 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, with an order as to costs, is not appealable as of right under section 76(1) of the Civil Procedure Act or Order 44 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Withdrawal of Suits — Costs of Withdrawal — Distinction from Costs Following the Event
The phrase 'costs follow the event' under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to costs awarded to a successful party after adjudication and does not apply to costs of a withdrawn suit under Order 25 rule 1, where there is no adjudication and no winner or loser.
Civil Procedure — Withdrawal of Suits — Costs — Exercise of Judicial Discretion
Where a court allows withdrawal of a suit with leave under Order 25 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the decision on costs is discretionary and an appellate court will not interfere unless the trial court misdirected itself or the decision was manifestly wrong causing injustice.
Civil Procedure — Consent Orders — Appealability
Where parties consent to an order, including an order as to costs of withdrawal, such order is akin to a consent order and is not appealable under section 67(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Counterclaims — Effect of Withdrawal of Main Suit
A counterclaim is a suit in its own right under Order 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules and may be proceeded with independently where the plaintiff's suit is withdrawn or discontinued.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (22)

  • Selle & another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & others (1968) E.A 123
  • Timbigamba Simon & Others v Ker Kwaro Palabek & Others (Civil Misc. Application No. 150 of 2021)
  • Mandavia v Rattan Singh [1968] E.A 146
  • Kwizera Eddie v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2008)
  • Iyamulemye David v Attorney General (SCCA No. 04 of 2013)
  • Besigye Kiiza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta & Electoral Commission (Presidential Election Petition No. 01 of 2001)
  • Hajji Ishaka Nsisinkano v Lutaya Alamanzani & Others (Civil Suit No. 57 of 2022)
  • SDV Transami (U) Ltd v Nsibambi Enterprises (Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2006)
  • Baker v Rush [1964] E.A 602
  • Genda Mai v Pirbhu Lai (1895) 17 All 97
  • Jogodindro v Sarup Sundari (1894) 18 Cal 322
  • Abdul Hussein v Kasi Sahu (1900) 27 Cal 362
  • Mathura Lai v Chiranji Lai
  • Sango Bay Estate Ltd & Others v Dresdner Bank AG [1971] E.A 17
  • Charles Sempewo & Ors v Silver Springs Hotel (1969) Ltd (C.A Civil Application No. 103 of 1993)
  • Combine (U) Ltd v AK Detergents (U) Ltd (SC Civil Application No. 23 of 1994)
  • Nangwe v Kuluma & another (HC Misc. Cause No. 1 of 1988)
  • Makhangu v Kibwana [1995-98] 1 EA 175
  • Mbogo v Shah (1968) E.A 93
  • Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd & Phillip Dandee (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2015)
  • Ngoma-Ngime v Electoral Commission and Hon. Winnie Byanyima (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Omona & 2 Others v Odoki & Another (Civil Appeal No. 069 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Obura Geoffrey and Others v Alunyu Eresinia (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 1380 (17 December 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.