Wakilii

Rhoda Kalema v Departed Asians' Property Custodian Board (Civil Suit 784 of 1990)

High Court · [1991] UGHC 92 · 1991 Application Granted — Costs to Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to discontinue civil suit following out-of-court settlement granting plaintiff management rights
Decision
Suit withdrawn with costs to the defendant

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

Where a plaintiff discontinues a suit after the defendant grants the relief sought, the court may award costs to the defendant if the plaintiff adopted an unnecessarily expensive withdrawal procedure rather than simply notifying the parties in writing. The plaintiff should have withdrawn by written notice to counsel and the Registrar rather than by formal chamber application requiring the defendant to incur legal costs attending court.

Outcome

Suit withdrawn with costs to the defendant

Facts

The plaintiff owned a one-tenth undivided share as tenant in common with nine expelled Asians in premises on Parliament Avenue, Kampala. After the 1972 expulsion, the Departed Asians' Property Custodian Board assumed management of the premises to the plaintiff's exclusion. The plaintiff sued in 1990 seeking management rights and alleging mismanagement. During the pendency of the suit, the Board agreed in November 1990 to grant the plaintiff management rights. Rather than withdrawing the suit by simple written notice, the plaintiff brought a formal chamber application in February 1991 to discontinue the proceedings. The defendant sought costs, arguing it had already granted the relief sought before the formal application was filed.

Issues

  1. Whether costs should be awarded to the defendant when the plaintiff discontinues a suit after the defendant grants the relief sought during the pendency of the proceedings.

Orders

  • Chamber application to withdraw Civil Suit No. 784 of 1990 allowed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent/defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Discontinuance of Proceedings — Costs on Withdrawal — Unnecessary Procedural Expense
Where a defendant grants the relief sought by a plaintiff during the pendency of proceedings, and the plaintiff subsequently seeks to discontinue the suit by formal chamber application rather than by simple written notice to counsel and the Registrar, the court may award costs to the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff adopted an unnecessarily expensive procedure that put the defendant to avoidable legal expenses.
Discontinuance of Proceedings — Order 22 Rule 1(2) CPR — Award of Costs
Order 22 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which governs discontinuance of suits, envisages the possibility of costs being awarded not to the withdrawing plaintiff but to the inconvenienced defendant who is made to appear at proceedings.

Legislation cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rhoda Kalema v Departed Asians' Property Custodian Board (Civil Suit 784 of 1990) [1991] UGHC 92 (25 November 1991)
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.