Attorney General v James Rwanyarare & Others (often connected to Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2003)
Brief Facts
In Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 1999, Dr. James Rwanyarare and others (UPC members) had challenged the constitutionality of the Movement system and restrictions on political parties under Article 269 of the 1995 Constitution. The Constitutional Court dismissed the petition.
The petitioners then filed for costs, and the Constitutional Court (by majority) awarded them no costs, reasoning that the matter was of great constitutional importance and in the public interest.
The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court on the issue of costs only.
Issues
Whether the Constitutional Court erred in denying costs to the successful party (the petitioners).
Whether the principle that “costs follow the event” (the successful party is ordinarily awarded costs) applies in constitutional petitions.
Whether constitutional matters of public interest create an exception to the general rule on costs.
Holding
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
It held that the general rule is that costs follow the event — meaning the successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs unless there is a good reason to depart from that rule.
The Court found that the Constitutional Court had not provided sufficient reasons to deny costs to the petitioners. The fact that the case involved constitutional issues of public importance was not, by itself, a valid ground to deprive the successful party of costs.
The Supreme Court therefore ordered that the petitioners be awarded their costs both in the Constitutional Court and in the Supreme Court.