Wakilii

Sande Kwefuga v Namanya David and Others (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 003 OF 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 537 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Assistant Registrar's costs order arising from withdrawal of Miscellaneous Application No. 0159 of 2022
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

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 dismissed the applicant's application for review of the Assistant Registrar's costs order. The court held that affidavits in rejoinder filed by non-applicant respondents were irregular and struck them out. The court overruled the preliminary objection that the application was improperly brought under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act, finding the application properly grounded under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, section 33 of the Judicature Act, and Order 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules. On the merits, the court found no error apparent on the face of the record in the Assistant Registrar's award of costs, noting that the respondents had been served, filed a reply, and attended court hearings, and that the court has discretion to award costs upon withdrawal under Order 25 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 0159 of 2022 on 18 October 2022. The respondents' counsel received a copy on 3 November 2022 and filed an affidavit in reply on 15 November 2022, serving it on the applicant's counsel on 17 November 2022. The application was scheduled for hearing on 1 December 2022, with both parties and respondents' counsel present. On 9 November 2022, the applicant requested withdrawal of the application. The matter was adjourned to 7 February 2023. On that date, the applicant's counsel sought to withdraw the application unconditionally and without costs, arguing the respondents had not been served. The Assistant Registrar allowed withdrawal but awarded taxed costs to the respondents, finding they had been served and had incurred costs in instructing counsel. The applicant then filed this application seeking review of the costs order, arguing the respondents were never served and the costs award was an error apparent on the face of the record.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavits in rejoinder filed by the 6th and 7th respondents were irregular and should be struck off.
  2. Whether the application was irregularly brought under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  3. Whether this was a proper application for revision or review.
  4. Whether the respondents were served with Miscellaneous Application No. 0159 of 2022.
  5. Whether the Assistant Registrar's award of costs to the respondents was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Orders

  • The affidavits in rejoinder filed by the 6th and 7th respondents are struck out.
  • The preliminary objection that the application was irregularly brought under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act is overruled.
  • The application for review is disallowed and dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondents to be met by the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits in Rejoinder — Irregularity — Non-Applicant Respondents Filing Affidavits in Rejoinder
Respondents who have not filed affidavits in support of an application lack locus standi to file affidavits in rejoinder, as they are not party witnesses and the Civil Procedure Rules do not provide for affidavits in rejoinder by non-applicant respondents.
Civil Procedure — Review and Revision — Distinction — Proper Grounds for Application
An application for review must be brought under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and must be grounded on discovery of new and important evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, whereas revision under section 83 applies only to decisions of magistrate courts, not decisions of the registrar.
Civil Procedure — Withdrawal of Application — Award of Costs — Discretion of Court
Under Order 25 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has discretion to award costs to the opposite party upon withdrawal of an application, and service on the other party is not a prerequisite for the award of costs where the opposite party has incurred costs in instructing counsel and attending court.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Standard
An error apparent on the face of the record is an evident mistake that does not require external evidence to prove it incorrect and must be so obvious that no court would allow it to remain, whether it is an error of fact or law, provided the law is clear and identifiable.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (6)

  • Wadri Mathias and 4 Others v Dranilla Angella (Civil Revision No. 007 of 2019)
  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (HCT Misc. Application No. 0098 of 2005)
  • Nsubuga Joseph v Ndiwalana Lawrence (Revision Appeal No. 5 of 2018)
  • MK Financiers Ltd vs N. Shah & Co. Ltd & 4 Ors
  • Attorney General and Others v Boniface Byanyima (HCMA No. 1789 of 2000)
  • Levi Outa v Uganda Transport Company [1995] HCB 340

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sande Kwefuga v Namanya David and Others (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 003 OF 2023) [2026] UGHC 537 (28 April 2026)
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.