Wakilii

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

Court of Appeal · [2006] UGCA 62 · 2006 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal against the High Court's order on costs in an application to extend a caveat
Decision
Appeal allowed; costs order set aside and substituted with an order that the respondent pay the appellants' costs in the High Court and on 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

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in ordering each party to bear its own costs of a caveat-extension application that was struck out as misconceived and incompetent. Although costs are within the court's discretion under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, that discretion must be exercised judicially, and costs follow the event unless there is good reason otherwise. Because the incompetence and abuse of process arose entirely from the respondent's own conduct, there was no good reason to deny the successful appellants their costs. The appeal was allowed, the trial judge's costs order set aside, and the respondent ordered to pay the appellants' costs in the High Court and on appeal.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; costs order set aside and substituted with an order that the respondent pay the appellants' costs in the High Court and on appeal

Facts

The appellants were the registered proprietors as administrators of an estate over land in Kyadondo Block 110 Plot 11, registered as Mailo in 1961. Jalia Nalubega lodged a caveat on the land in 2001 claiming to be a lawful registered proprietor and attaching a certificate of title, which the Kampala mailo office later declared had no root of title and was an illegal document. Frederick Kavuma, the respondent, lodged a caveat claiming a customary tenure interest lasting some forty years. The appellants said Kavuma had never occupied the land and his claim was false. On receipt of notice from the Chief Registrar of Titles to show cause why the caveat should be retained, the respondent applied under the Registration of Titles Act to extend the caveat. The trial judge rejected the application as misconceived, incompetent and an abuse of process, struck it out, and found the respondent had not come to court with clean hands. However, he ordered each party to bear its own costs, prompting the appellants' appeal on costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in law and fact by ordering each party to meet its own costs of the application.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The order of the trial judge that each party meets its own costs is set aside.
  • The respondent to pay the appellants the costs in the High Court.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellants.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Judicial Discretion — Costs Follow the Event under Civil Procedure Act s.27
Costs are in the discretion of the court under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, but that discretion must be exercised judicially; costs follow the event and a successful party should not be denied costs except for some good reason connected with the case.
Costs — Denial of Costs to a Successful Party — Requirement of Good Reason
Where the incompetence, misconception or abuse of process leading to the striking out of an application is caused entirely by the unsuccessful party's own conduct, that conduct is not a good reason to deny the successful party its costs.
Appeals — Interference with Discretion of Trial Judge on Costs
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge's exercise of discretion unless satisfied that the judge misdirected himself, took into account irrelevant matters, or was clearly wrong, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Uganda Development Bank vs. Muyenga Construction Company Ltd [1981] HCB 35
  • UEB International vs Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 1
  • Mbogo and Another vs Shah [1968] EA 93

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssaka and Another v Kavunia (Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2003) [2006] UGCA 62 (1 January 2006)
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.