This ruling is in respect of taxation of bills of costs filed by the Applicants herein in Consolidated Application Nos. 8 and 9 of 2012 Quality Chemicals Industries Ltd and National Medical Stores vs. Godfrey Magezi. The Bills are for a total sum of United States Dollars Two Hundred and Fifty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Three and Ninety Seven Cents (USD 257, 643.97) and Three Hundred and Nine Thousand Eighty Six (USD 309, 086) respectively including among others instruction fees, attendances and disbursements in the Application. The Applicants in these taxations were represented by Mr. Peter Kauma Advocate of Kiwanuka & Karugire Advocates for the 1st Applicant and Mr. Justin Semuyaba Advocate of M/s Semuyaba, Iga & Co. Advocates for the 2nd Applicant while the Respondent was represented by Mr. Mohammed Mbabazi Advocate of Nyanzi, Kiboneka & Mbabazi Advocates.
The background of this bill of costs is that the Applicants had been wrongly impleaded as Interested Parties in Reference No. 5 of 2013. After the Interested Parties had been served and filed their Responses, the Applicant in the Reference amended his Reference and served the Interested Parties with Notices of Withdrawal. The Applicants herein then separately filed two applications that were consolidated as Consolidated Application No. 8 and 9 of 2014. The two applications were filed under Rules 51(2), 21 (1) and (5) of the Rules of this Court. In summary their argument was that the withdrawal/discontinuance of the matter against them without an agreement in writing of terms of such withdrawal and in particular terms as to costs. It was on that basis and having regard to other costs that they had incurred in the process that they were pursuing their entitled costs. They argued that they were entitled to costs as provided under Rule 111 (i) of the Rules of this Court, which unequivocally states that costs follow the event, unless the Court for good reasons orders otherwise. The Court in its ruling dated and delivered on 19th June 2014 held that the Applicants in the application as well as the IGG were entitled to costs as prayed from the date of the order until payment in full and also condemned the Respondent to pay costs of the application.