Asadi Semiko v Maimuna Zirabamuzale (MISCELANOUS APPLICATION. NO.5/92) [1992] UGHCCD 112 (27 May 1992)

Flynote

Civil Procedure|Ex parte proceedings

Case summary

The court held that having a suit heard and determined ex parte does not automatically mean that the taxing of the bill of costs may also proceed ex parte and the applicant or his advocate ought to have been given notice. The court also noted that if the execution was not stayed pending a quick determination of the appeal, the applicant was at a risk of losing his and his family’s livelihood. It also noted that the applicant had undertaken to abide by any decree of the court if a stay was to be granted. The order for a stay of execution was thus granted with one of its terms being the applicant’s depositing of half the costs of the suit determined by the magistrate, with the court.

---