Wakilii

Uganda N'eddagala Lyayo the National Traditional Healers & Herbalists Association Limited & Another v Saazi & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 2376 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 165 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for costs following abatement of underlying civil suit for alleged trademark infringement
Decision
Application dismissed; no costs awarded to either party

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 dismissed an application seeking costs after the abatement of an underlying suit. Held that the Court was functus officio having made a final order disposing of the main suit without awarding costs. An application to amend that order to include costs does not constitute an appeal, review, or revision. The applicants ought to have specifically sought review of the order within the prescribed legal framework for the Court to reconsider the issue of costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed; no costs awarded to either party

Facts

On 26 September 2022, the respondents filed Civil Suit No. 0822 of 2022 alleging trademark infringement against the applicants. The applicants filed a written statement of defence and counterclaim on 31 October 2022. The respondents replied to the counterclaim on 15 November 2022. Thereafter, the respondents failed to take out summons for directions as required by Order 11A rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019. The Court abated the main suit on 24 May 2023 without awarding costs. The applicants then brought this application seeking an order for costs in the abated suit on the basis that they were the successful parties.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be awarded costs in Civil Suit No. 0822 of 2022 after the suit was abated without a costs order.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Functus Officio Doctrine — Power to Award Costs After Final Order
Once a court pronounces judgment finally disposing of a suit, the court becomes functus officio and ceases to have control over the case. The court has no power to override, alter, or interfere with that judgment absent an appeal or an application to review, revise, or otherwise set aside the decision as prescribed by law.
Costs — Application to Amend Final Order for Costs — Not a Review
An application seeking to amend a final order disposing of a suit to include an award of costs does not constitute an appeal, review, or revision. Where costs were not awarded in the original order, a party seeking costs must specifically apply for review of that order within the prescribed legal framework; a fresh application not invoking review jurisdiction will be dismissed.
Costs — Discretion of Court — Successful Party Entitled to Costs
The general rule is that costs follow the event. A successful party is ordinarily entitled to costs of the suit unless the court, for good reason, orders otherwise. The unsuccessful party seeking to avoid liability for costs bears the burden of proving special circumstances justifying denial of costs.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kwizera Eddie v Attorney General (SC Constitutional Appeal No. 01 of 2008)
  • Candiru Alice v Amandua Festo & 2 Others (HCCS No. 19 of 2014)
  • Major (Rtd) Roland Kakooza Mutale v Balisigara Stephen (CA Consolidated Civil Applications Nos. 121 and 277 of 2020)
  • Egwedi Basil v Eroku James (HC Civil Application No. 28 of 2012)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda N'eddagala Lyayo the National Traditional Healers & Herbalists Association Limited & Another v Saazi & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 2376 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 165 (
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.