Ssaka and Another v Kavuma (Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2003)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that although the award of costs is within a trial judge's discretion, that discretion must be exercised judicially and a successful party should not be denied costs absent a good reason connected with the case. The respondent had dragged the appellants to court on an incompetent and misconceived application that was an abuse of process, supported by affidavits containing falsehoods, and had come to court without clean hands. The trial judge's reasons for ordering each party to bear its own costs did not amount to good reason. The appeal was allowed and the order substituted with an order that the respondent pay the appellants' costs in the High Court.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; respondent ordered to pay appellants' costs in the High Court and on appeal

Facts

On 15 July 2002 the appellants became registered proprietors of land at Kyadondo Block 220 Plot 11 Kiwatule as administrators of the estate of the late Dasani Matovu. Jalia Nalubega lodged a caveat on the same land in August 2002, attaching a certificate of title which the Kampala mailo office subsequently declared had no root of title and was an illegal document. Frederick Kavuma later lodged a caveat claiming an interest based on customary tenure of over forty years. When the Chief Registrar of Titles issued notice to show cause why the caveat should be retained, Kavuma applied under section 149(3) of the Registration of Titles Act to extend the caveat. The High Court rejected the application as misconceived and incompetent, struck it out, and ordered each party to bear its own costs because of the inconclusive nature of the dispute. The appellants appealed the costs order.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge erred in ordering each party to meet its own costs of the application.
2. Whether an appellate court may interfere with the trial judge's exercise of discretion on costs.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• The trial judge's order that each party meet its own costs is set aside.
• Substituted with an order that the respondent pays the appellants the costs in the High Court.
• Appeal allowed with costs to the appellants.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.27
• Registration of Titles Act s.149(2)
• Registration of Titles Act s.149(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 48 r.1

Cases cited (3)

• Uganda Development Bank vs. Muvenga Construction Company Ltd [1981] H.C.B. 35
• Makula International vs Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 11
• Mbogo and Another vs Shah [1968] EA 93

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