Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Alexander Kizza Kiberu v Namugga Florence (Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 475 (27 June 2025)
The High Court in Luwero dismissed the applicant’s withdrawal application and awarded costs to the respondent after the application was withdrawn at the applicant’s instance.
Wamanga & Another v Ballon Ventures Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application 434 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 6 (15 January 2025)
The court found that the applicants failed to disclose any compelling grounds for the grant of leave to appeal. The omission of the registrar's signature and seal on the written statement of defence was attributed to counsel's error, which should not prejudice the litigants; amendment to cure the defect was permitted. The striking out of the counterclaim for being filed out of time did not entitle the applicants to costs, as awarding costs for an illegality is inappropriate and the matter is within the court's discretion. The court concluded that no arguable grounds or reasonable prospects of…
Source excerpt
Agency for Transformation and Another v Attorney General of Uganda and Another (Constitutional Petition 5 of 2020) [2023] UGCA 405 (30 November 2023)
The Constitutional Court dismissed a withdrawn constitutional petition with costs to the Second Respondent, limited to disbursements and nominal professional fees.
Dombo v Bigirwenkya and Another (Miscellaneous Application 160 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 93 (27 October 2023)
The High Court at Masindi allowed withdrawal of a miscellaneous application after finding the disputed security for due performance had already been paid, and dismissed the application with no costs.
Ssemakula v Kibuuka (Taxation Appeal No. 3 of 2022) [2022] UGHCLD 212 (4 November 2022)
The court found that the Taxing Officer awarded instruction fees and other items in excess of the amounts prescribed by the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations. The subject matter was vaguely estimated above UGX 20,000,000, but the court determined that the precise estimate should be UGX 20,000,000, and applied the scale in item 1(d) of the Sixth Schedule, resulting in a revised instruction fee of UGX 2,320,000. Other items were similarly revised to align with the prescribed amounts. The court held that the award of UGX 6,790,000 was manifestly excessive and not in accord…
Source excerpt
Quality Chemical Industries Ltd and Another v Magezi (Application 8 of 2014; Application 9 of 2014) [2014] EACJ 142 (19 June 2014) (First Instance Division)
The Court held that the Applicants and the Inspector-General of Government were wrongly impleaded as Interested Parties in a capacity unknown to the law of the East African Community. Upon withdrawal of the Reference against them, they had already incurred costs in responding to court notifications and preparing their defence. The absence of a provision for Interested Parties in the Rules does not preclude an award of costs, as the discretion to award costs is a judicial function and costs generally follow the event. The Court found that the Respondent's arguments were speculative and unreaso…
Source excerpt
AB. Kateshumbwa v Mbunjukye & Anor (CIVIL APPEAL NO. MKA 5 OF 1986) [1999] UGHCCD 1 (5 November 1999)
The appeal was properly before the court despite the absence of a decree, as the law does not require extraction and filing of a decree for appeals against taxation orders. The trial Magistrate erred by taxing costs without a bill of costs being presented and failed to provide reasons for the amount taxed. There was insufficient evidence for the appellate court to reassess the costs, and the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to present all relevant expenses. The remedy is to order a retrial before the Magistrate Grade I to review all materials and properly assess the costs.
Source excerpt
In Re: Mohamed Bux and Son ((Bankruptcy Cause No. 29/1933.)) [1934] EACA 19 (1 January 1934)
The court refused a trustee’s application for costs against examinees summoned under section 27 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, holding the request was premature.
Candiru v Amandua & 2 Ors (CIVIL SUIT No. 0019 OF 2014) [2017] UGHCCD 139 (27 October 2017)
The court found no misconduct or special circumstances on the part of the plaintiff that would disentitle her from recovering costs. The defendants failed to prove any disentitling conduct or that the plaintiff rejected a reasonable settlement offer. The general rule that costs follow the event applies, and the plaintiff, as the successful party, is entitled to costs. However, since the substantive matters were compromised and the case was not complex, the court exercised its discretion to award only 80% of the costs to the plaintiff, allowing the defendants a 20% discount in recognition of t…
Source excerpt
