Wakilii

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

High Court · [1991] UGHC 70 · 1991 Application Granted — Costs to Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Chamber application to discontinue civil suit following out-of-court settlement
Decision
Suit discontinued with costs to 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

Application to withdraw civil suit granted with costs awarded to the defendant. Where management of premises was surrendered to plaintiff before chamber application was filed, plaintiff could have withdrawn suit by simple letter rather than formal chamber application, thereby avoiding unnecessary expense to the defendant. Costs awarded to defendant for being put to avoidable expense of attending court proceedings.

Outcome

Suit discontinued with costs to defendant

Facts

The plaintiff owned one-tenth undivided share in leasehold premises on Parliament Avenue, Kampala, as tenant in common with 9 Asians expelled in 1972. The Departed Asians' Property Custodian Board assumed possession and management of the entire premises to the plaintiff's exclusion. The plaintiff filed suit in 1990 seeking management rights and alleging mismanagement. Before the chamber application was filed on 16 February 1991, the defendant had already agreed on 7 November 1990 to grant the plaintiff management of the premises. The plaintiff then sought to discontinue the suit through formal chamber application. The defendant opposed the withdrawal without costs, arguing the plaintiff should have withdrawn by simple letter rather than formal application requiring court attendance.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to discontinue the suit following settlement.
  2. Which party should bear the costs of the chamber application to discontinue the suit.

Orders

  • Chamber application to withdraw HCCS No. 784/90 allowed.
  • Costs of the chamber application awarded to the respondent/defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Discontinuance of Suits — Procedure and Costs
Where a defendant has agreed to the relief sought by a plaintiff before a chamber application to discontinue the suit is filed, the plaintiff should withdraw the suit by letter to counsel and the registrar rather than by formal chamber application, as the latter procedure puts the defendant to avoidable expense.
Discontinuance of Suits — Award of Costs to Defendant
Under Order 22 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, costs of a chamber application to withdraw a suit may be awarded to the defendant where the defendant is made to appear at proceedings and incur expense, notwithstanding that the plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit.

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 70 (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.