[2009] UGHC 149

[2009] UGHC 149

The High Court held that the Chief Magistrate erred in law by invoking Order 25 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules to order the appellant to pay costs to the first and third respondents, who were already deceased at the time of withdrawal. The correct procedure in such circumstances is governed by Order 24 rule...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGHC 149
Parties
Appellant: Lakeri Naluwooza; Respondent: Namwandu Yake Lunkuse Kyazze; Respondent: Israel Nyanzi; Respondent: Godfrey Katembwa
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Appeal No.59 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_allowed
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Suit, Costs Awards, Substitution of Parties, Death of Party, Magistrates Court Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Withdrawal of Suit Costs Awards Substitution of Parties Death of Party Magistrates Court Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakeri Naluwooza

Appellant

Namwandu Yake Lunkuse Kyazze

Respondent

Israel Nyanzi

Respondent

Godfrey Katembwa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Magistrate was right to order the appellant to pay costs to the first and third respondents upon withdrawal of the suit against them, given that they were deceased at the time of withdrawal.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the Chief Magistrate erred in law by invoking Order 25 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules to order the appellant to pay costs to the first and third respondents, who were already deceased at the time of withdrawal. The correct procedure in such circumstances is governed by Order 24 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which does not require payment of costs upon withdrawal against a deceased party. The order for costs was therefore both illegal and irregular, and it was set aside. The suit was remitted to the Chief Magistrate's Court for trial against the legal representatives of the second respondent. Costs of the appeal were ordered to abide the outcome of...

Court Disposition

appeal_allowed

Orders

  • The order requiring the appellant to pay costs to the first and third respondents is set aside.
  • Civil Suit No.236 is remitted to the Chief Magistrate's Court for trial against the legal representatives of the second respondent.