Wakilii

Rwomugara v Nantabadde (Civil Appeal 71 of 1991)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 63 · 1993 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court of Masaka, which had allowed an appeal from Magistrate Grade II Lyantonde
Decision
Appeal allowed; costs order of Chief Magistrate set aside; appellant awarded costs in lower courts and in the appeal.

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 the Chief Magistrate exercised his discretion unjudicially when he refused to award costs to the successful appellant. While the award of costs is discretionary under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the proviso requires that costs follow the event unless there is good reason to order otherwise. The Chief Magistrate's reasons—strained relationship between parties and humanitarian grounds to reconcile them—did not constitute good reasons in law. The appeal succeeded and the appellant was awarded costs in the lower courts and in the appeal.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; costs order of Chief Magistrate set aside; appellant awarded costs in lower courts and in the appeal.

Facts

The respondent sued the appellant in Civil Suit No. 62 of 1981 at Lyantonde for an eviction order, general damages and costs, alleging that the appellant was a trespasser on her land. The Magistrate Grade II found for the respondent, ordering eviction, awarding general damages of Shs. 5,000 and costs. The appellant appealed to the Chief Magistrate of Masaka, who allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant was a customary tenant who could not be evicted arbitrarily and that the respondent would have to compensate him for developments before eviction. However, the Chief Magistrate made no order as to costs, reasoning that costs would further strain the already sour relationship between landlord and tenant. The appellant appealed the refusal to award costs to the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Chief Magistrate erred in law by refusing to award costs to the successful party in an appeal.
  2. Whether the Chief Magistrate exercised his discretion judicially when disallowing costs to the appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Order of the Chief Magistrate's Court as regards costs is set aside.
  • Appellant awarded costs in the lower courts.
  • Appellant awarded costs of this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Costs Following the Event
Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs are at the discretion of the court, but the proviso requires that costs shall follow the event unless the court has good reason to order otherwise.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Appellate Interference with Discretion
An appellate court should not interfere with a trial court's exercise of discretion on costs unless the discretion has been exercised unjudicially or on wrong principles.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Good Reason to Depart from Rule — Strained Relationship
The usual strained relationship between parties to litigation does not constitute good reason under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act to deny the successful party his costs.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Good Reason to Depart from Rule — Humanitarian Grounds
Humanitarian grounds or an attempt to reconcile parties do not constitute good reasons within the meaning of section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act for refusing to award costs to the successful party.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Uganda Transport Company vs. Quia /19£.> / dCd
  • Sheikh Jama v Dubat Farah [1959] EA 789
  • Kjska Ltd v De Angelis [1969] EA 6
  • Donald Campbell & Co Ltd v Pollak [1927] AC 732
  • Devram Nan.ji Pattani vs. Hayidus Kalidas Dawdfr /12/t9_X LAC A 35
  • Hussein Jan Mohamed & Sons v Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd [1967] EA 287

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwomugara v Nantabadde (Civil Appeal 71 of 1991) [1993] UGHC 63 (20 October 1993)
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.