Wakilii

Sentongo v Kiyimba & Another (Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 397 · 2023 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of ruling on preliminary objection, seeking costs order and correction of clerical error
Decision
Application partly allowed; clerical error in earlier ruling acknowledged but no substantive relief granted on costs issue

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 while the award of costs is discretionary under s.27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court should state reasons when denying costs to a successful party. The court acknowledged a clerical error in the earlier ruling regarding the interpretation of s.272 of the Succession Act but found that the error did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The application for review of the Deputy Registrar's dismissal of the bill of costs was rejected as the proper remedy was an appeal, not review. The application partly succeeded only on the interpretation point. Costs were awarded to the party succeeding in the main cause.

Outcome

Application partly allowed; clerical error in earlier ruling acknowledged but no substantive relief granted on costs issue

Facts

The applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 53 of 2016 as administrator of an estate. In November 2020, the respondents raised a preliminary objection which was overruled by the court. The court's ruling omitted to make an express order as to costs despite the applicant being the successful party. The applicant filed a bill of costs which was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar. The applicant then brought this application for review seeking an order for costs and correction of what he alleged was a clerical error in the ruling — specifically, a paragraph stating that s.272 of the Succession Act does not allow an administrator to exercise duties on behalf of all other administrators, which the applicant argued contradicted the rest of the ruling that found he had capacity to bring the suit as one of several administrators.

Issues

  1. Whether a successful party is entitled to costs unless the court for good reasons otherwise orders, and whether the Deputy Registrar's dismissal of the plaintiff's bill of costs should be set aside.
  2. Whether the second paragraph on page 4 of the ruling is contradictory to and inconsistent with the reasoning in the rest of the ruling.
  3. Whether an application supported or opposed by a false affidavit is competent in a court of law.

Orders

  • The application partly succeeds.
  • The costs for this application are awarded to the party that will succeed in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Duty to Give Reasons
Under s.27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, while the award of costs is discretionary, the court has a duty to give reasons where costs are not awarded to a successful party.
Civil Procedure — Review — Proper Remedy — Appeal vs Review
An application for review is not the proper remedy to challenge a Deputy Registrar's dismissal of a bill of costs; the correct procedure is to appeal under Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Review is a function of the trial court and must be heard by the judicial officer who made the impugned order.
Succession & Estates — Letters of Administration — Capacity of Joint Administrator
Under s.272 of the Succession Act as amended, an administrator who has taken out letters of administration may act in representative capacity of other administrators, except in cases of execution of conveyances.
Civil Procedure — Review — Clerical Errors — Miscarriage of Justice
A clerical error in a ruling does not warrant review unless the applicant demonstrates that the error has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (7)

  • Rwantale v Rwabutoga [1988-1990] HCB 100
  • Nathan Katamba v Stephen Kabigyema (HCCS No. 42 of 1998)
  • Masaka District Administration (CACA No. 64 of 2000)
  • Devram Nanji Dattani v Haridas Kalidas Dawda (1949) 16 EACA 35
  • Donald Campbell v Pollak [1927] AC 732
  • Silver Byaruhanga v Fr Emmanuel Ruvugwaho & Another (SCCA No. 9 of 2014)
  • Rtd Col Dr Kizza Besigye v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (Supreme Court Election Petition No. 1 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sentongo v Kiyimba & Another (Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 397 (30 June 2023)
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.