Wakilii

Wolukawo Wanda v Attorney General (HCT-04-CV-MA-207-2012)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCD 135 · 2013 Application Dismissed — No Order as to Costs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary order of prohibition arising from judicial review proceedings challenging proposed dam construction project
Decision
Application withdrawn by consent; no order as to costs

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

Court exercised discretion under Civil Procedure Act s.27(1) to order each party bear own costs where judicial review proceedings were withdrawn by consent after the challenged dam project was abandoned and re-allocated to another site, the matter having been determined without hearing on merits and neither party acting unreasonably.

Outcome

Application withdrawn by consent; no order as to costs

Facts

The applicants sought judicial review remedies including certiorari, prohibition and an injunction to restrain the Attorney General from implementing a proposed dam construction project at a specified site. They also filed an application for a temporary order of prohibition. When the matter first appeared in court on 4 September 2013, the Resident State Attorney informed court that the project had been time-bound and scheduled to commence in February 2013, but had been overtaken by passage of time and re-allocated to another site. A letter from the Minister of Water and Environment dated 2 May 2013 confirmed the project had been abandoned. Both parties consented to withdrawal of the application. Disagreement arose only on the question of costs, with applicants seeking costs in their favour while respondent opposed any costs award and sought costs for itself.

Issues

  1. Whether either party was entitled to costs after the application was withdrawn by consent following abandonment of the underlying government project.

Orders

  • Application withdrawn from court.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Withdrawn Proceedings
Under Civil Procedure Act s.27(1), the trial judge has discretion to determine which party should be entitled to costs after considering the case justly.
Civil Procedure — Costs — No Hearing on Merits — General Principle
Where proceedings are determined without a hearing on the merits and it cannot be said that one party has simply capitulated, the general principle is that courts make no order as to costs with the intent that each party bear its own costs, unless it can be seen that one party has acted unreasonably in bringing or defending the proceedings.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Pty Ltd v Agostine Jarret Pty Ltd (2007) NSWSC 971
  • Harkens v Harkens (No. 2) (2012) NSWSC 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wolukawo Wanda v Attorney General (HCT-04-CV-MA-207-2012) [2013] UGHCCD 135 (17 October 2013)
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.