Costs

Komakech & Anor v Akol & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2010) [2012] UGSC 10 (21 December 2012);

Flynote: 

Search Summary: 

The 3 rd respondent instituted in the High Court an election petition against Rose
the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent. The High Court dismissed the petition and awarded
costs against the petitioner, the 3 rd Respondent. She instructed the 1 st and 2 nd
appellant to appeal against the decision of the High Court. There was a mess in
the process of filing or attempting to institute the Notice of Appeal and effecting
service of the same on the respondents in that intended appeal. As a result, the
1 st and 2 nd Respondents successfully moved the Court of Appeal to strike out both
the Notice of Appeal and the Appeal itself for failure to comply with relevant
rules governing the institution of such appeals and the serving of relevant records
such as the Notice of Appeal, and due to professional negligence on the part of
the two appellants, the Court ordered the appellants to pay the costs both in the
Court of Appeal in respect of the appeal itself and the application to strike out
that appeal and the costs of the petition. The appellants appealed against the
whole order.

Headnote and Holding: 

The court observed that the order to the appellants to pay costs of the petition
was an error as the matter was not before court for adjudication. The court
further observed that the court had heard the matter without quorum when one
learned justice failed to attend hearing of the motion due to disagreement in the
ruling and held that the court had acted irregular in disregard of its rules.
The court held that the ruling and judgment were a nullity as there was disregard
of the law.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Costs