Wakilii

Sebuliba and Others v Visa Investments Ltd and Another [2021] UGCA 216

Court of Appeal · 2021 Application Withdrawn — Costs in the Cause AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference by the Registrar to determine the appropriate costs order following withdrawal of an application to stay execution
Decision
Application withdrawn; costs ordered to be costs in the cause of the pending appeal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

On a reference to determine costs following the withdrawal of an application to stay execution, the Court held that although costs generally follow the event, the court retains an absolute but judicial discretion to order otherwise for good reason. The applicants had diligently pursued both the application and the underlying appeal, and had the court adjudicated the application timely, execution could have been stayed. Recognising, however, that the respondents were successful parties who may ultimately need compensation, the Court ordered that the costs of the withdrawn application be costs in the cause of the pending Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2020.

Outcome

Application withdrawn; costs ordered to be costs in the cause of the pending appeal

Facts

The dispute arose among family members concerning ownership of several properties, including land at Golf Course Road, Kololo, where the first and third applicants lived before eviction. The applicants had instituted Civil Suit No. 253 of 2019 in the High Court (Family Division) against the respondents, but the suit was determined in favour of the respondents, who obtained an order to evict the applicants. The applicants appealed vide Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2020. The respondents obtained leave to execute the decree, and the applicants' High Court application to stay execution was dismissed. On 21 August 2020 the applicants filed the present application in the Court of Appeal to stay execution pending the appeal. The application was not heard until 30 March 2021, by which time execution had been completed. The applicants sought leave to withdraw the application, which was granted. The parties disagreed on costs, prompting the Registrar to refer the matter for determination.

Issues

  1. What is the appropriate costs order where an application to stay execution was withdrawn after being overtaken by completed execution?
  2. Whether there was good reason to deny costs to the successful respondents under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • The costs of the present application shall be costs in the cause of Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2020, still pending before the Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Discretion of the Court — Costs Follow the Event
Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the award of costs is in the discretion of the court, and although the general rule is that costs follow the event, the court may for good reason order otherwise.
Costs — Exercise of Discretion — Relevant and Extraneous Considerations
The court's discretion on costs must be exercised judicially, considering only matters connected to the litigation and not wholly extraneous or irrelevant matters.
Costs — Withdrawn Application — Costs in the Cause
Where an application to stay execution is withdrawn after being overtaken by completed execution, and the delay in adjudication is attributable to the court while the applicants acted diligently, the appropriate order may be that the costs of the application be costs in the cause of the pending appeal.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Civil Procedure Act cap.71 s.27

Cases cited (3)

  • Jones v Mcke and Mersey Docks and Harbour Board [1964] 2 All ER 842
  • Donald Campbell & Co Ltd v Pollak [1927] All ER Rep at p 41
  • Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sebuliba and Others v Visa Investments Ltd and Another 2021 UGCA 216 (21 October 2021)
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.