Wakilii

Sentamu Steven and 3 Others v Kirenga Robert (Revision Miscellaneous Application No. 013 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 918 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Revision application from costs order made by Chief Magistrate's Court in withdrawn civil suit
Decision
Revision application dismissed; costs order and taxation certificate of the lower court remain undisturbed

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

Held that the trial magistrate acted within jurisdiction when awarding costs upon withdrawal of the suit, as costs are at the court's discretion under Civil Procedure Act s.27(1) and the fact that a court lacks jurisdiction to try a suit is no bar to awarding costs under s.27(2). The proper remedy for challenging ex parte taxation proceedings is to apply to set them aside before the same court, and if denied, to appeal, not to seek revision. Revision applies only to jurisdictional errors, not to discretionary decisions on costs or quantum. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Revision application dismissed; costs order and taxation certificate of the lower court remain undisturbed

Facts

The applicants instituted Land Civil Suit No. 027 of 2023 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kiboga against the respondent. The suit land was initially valued at UGX 7,000,000 but after boundary opening was revalued at UGX 203,200,000. Realising the value exceeded the magistrate's court jurisdiction, the applicants applied to withdraw the suit for want of jurisdiction, to which the respondent consented on condition that he be awarded costs. The magistrate granted the withdrawal and awarded costs to the respondent. The costs were subsequently taxed at UGX 39,910,000. The applicants contended they were not served with the taxation bill or hearing notices and that the taxation proceeded ex parte. They brought this revision application seeking to set aside the costs order and taxation certificate.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity when awarding costs to the respondent upon withdrawal of the suit.
  2. Whether the taxation of costs without according the applicants a right to be heard constituted material irregularity warranting revision.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent to be paid by the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Revision — Scope and Grounds — Jurisdictional Errors Only
Revision under Civil Procedure Act s.83 applies only to jurisdictional errors: where a court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. Revision is not directed against conclusions of law or fact where jurisdiction is not involved, and is not an alternative to appeal.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion to Award Costs on Withdrawal of Suit
Under Civil Procedure Act s.27(1), costs in all suits are at the discretion of the court. Withdrawal of a suit by the plaintiff does not automatically relieve that party of costs incurred by the opposite party unless agreed upon by both parties. Where not agreed, the award of costs remains at the court's discretion, which must be exercised judiciously.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Award of Costs Where Court Lacks Jurisdiction
Under Civil Procedure Act s.27(2), the fact that a court has no jurisdiction to try a suit is no bar to the exercise of the power to award costs. A court may award costs even where the suit is withdrawn for want of jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Remedy for Ex Parte Taxation
Where taxation proceedings are conducted ex parte, the aggrieved party must first apply to the court that conducted those proceedings to set them aside. Only when such an application has been denied may the party appeal to a higher court. Revision is not the proper remedy for challenging ex parte taxation proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Appeal Against Taxing Officer's Decision
Under Advocates Act s.62(i), a person aggrieved by an order or decision of a taxing officer may appeal to the High Court within 30 days from the date of the decision. The proper remedy for challenging the quantum of taxed costs is appeal or review, not revision.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (7)

  • Uganda Telecom v Adratere Oreste (Miscellaneous Application No. 0021 of 2015)
  • Monsour Mohammad v Mugisha Paul (Civil Revision No. 29 of 2015)
  • Munobwa Muhammed v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (Civil Revision No. 01 of 2006)
  • Ronald Byamgaba v Kagweri Allan (HCMA No. 028 of 2022)
  • Matemba v Yanaulinga [1968] EA 643
  • Impressa Ing. Fortunato Federice v Irene Nabwire (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Joselene Kengeiga v Justus Tibyahati & Anor (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 071 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sentamu Steven and 3 Others v Kirenga Robert (Revision Miscellaneous Application No. 013 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 918 (6 June 2025)
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.