'
1. Today was for highlighting of written submissions. However, Counsel for the Petitioner sought orally to withdraw the matter on account of the Notice of Withdrawal dated 22/10/2025 filed in Court and served on the opposing parties. The Petitioner’s Application was for withdrawal of the Petition with no orders as to costs.
2. Whereas Counsel for the 1st Respondent was not opposed to the withdrawal with no orders as to costs, Counsel for the 2nd Respondent prayed that if the withdrawal is allowed it be with costs in light of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission’s extensive involvement and filings in this matter.
3. That Application for Withdrawal, and the opposition limited to the prayer for costs by the 2nd Respondent, is the subject of this Ruling.
4. Having considered the matter, the Court is firstly satisfied that the Petition filed does not on its face appear to be one filed frivolously, mischievously, vexatiously, or as an abuse of the court process. It raised arguable constitutional questions and which elicited spirited replies in opposition.
5. The Court further notes that on the face of it the Petitioner was motivated by his belief that his prosecution was unconstitutional for being in the nature of harassment, malice, abuse of constitutional power and authority, and one motivated by extraneous considerations.
6. I further note that the 2nd Respondent put up a spirited defence, including filing a Notice of Motion Application dated 17/07/2025 seeking that the ex parte conservatory orders granted in Chambers on 04/06/2025 be vacated, as well as substantive responses in opposition to the main matters raised by the Petition.
7. I find no reason to burden a Petitioner who is withdrawing a Petition before this Court because he has succeeded in convincing the parties to withdraw the impugned proceedings that had been instituted in the criminal court below. This would in essence place Petitioners in a position where they have an incentive to continue with Petitions that have been rendered moot or academic merely because they are fearful of being burdened with costs. This would not only unnecessarily expend scarce judicial time and resources but would also utilize the same on the part of the other parties in the Petition with no real justice gain for them.
8. Furthermore, it would only prolong a matter in relation to criminal proceedings which have themselves been withdrawn as against the Petitioner for there to be an award of costs in this matter.
9. I am further persuaded by the fact that the 2nd Respondent is a public body whose funding is met by the taxpayer and the counsel for the 2nd Respondent is internal to the 2nd Respondent. Thus, the costs upon withdrawal, if they were to be awarded, would likely be nominal and the 2nd Respondent can in any case pursue them in other avenues if it wishes.
10. Consequently, I order and direct that this Petition be and is hereby marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs.
11. Orders accordingly. File closed accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025.
BAHATI MWAMUYE MBS
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Counsel for the Petitioner – Mr. Mabachi and Ms. Imani
Counsel for the 1st Respondent – Mr. Maatwa
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent – Ms. Kisabei
Court Assistant – Ms. Neema Lwambia
'
1. Today was for highlighting of written submissions. However, Counsel for the Petitioner sought orally to withdraw the matter on account of the Notice of Withdrawal dated 22/10/2025 filed in Court and served on the opposing parties. The Petitioner’s Application was for withdrawal of the Petition with no orders as to costs.
2. Whereas Counsel for the 1st Respondent was not opposed to the withdrawal with no orders as to costs, Counsel for the 2nd Respondent prayed that if the withdrawal is allowed it be with costs in light of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission’s extensive involvement and filings in this matter.
3. That Application for Withdrawal, and the opposition limited to the prayer for costs by the 2nd Respondent, is the subject of this Ruling.
4. Having considered the matter, the Court is firstly satisfied that the Petition filed does not on its face appear to be one filed frivolously, mischievously, vexatiously, or as an abuse of the court process. It raised arguable constitutional questions and which elicited spirited replies in opposition.
5. The Court further notes that on the face of it the Petitioner was motivated by his belief that his prosecution was unconstitutional for being in the nature of harassment, malice, abuse of constitutional power and authority, and one motivated by extraneous considerations.
6. I further note that the 2nd Respondent put up a spirited defence, including filing a Notice of Motion Application dated 17/07/2025 seeking that the ex parte conservatory orders granted in Chambers on 04/06/2025 be vacated, as well as substantive responses in opposition to the main matters raised by the Petition.
7. I find no reason to burden a Petitioner who is withdrawing a Petition before this Court because he has succeeded in convincing the parties to withdraw the impugned proceedings that had been instituted in the criminal court below. This would in essence place Petitioners in a position where they have an incentive to continue with Petitions that have been rendered moot or academic merely because they are fearful of being burdened with costs. This would not only unnecessarily expend scarce judicial time and resources but would also utilize the same on the part of the other parties in the Petition with no real justice gain for them.
8. Furthermore, it would only prolong a matter in relation to criminal proceedings which have themselves been withdrawn as against the Petitioner for there to be an award of costs in this matter.
9. I am further persuaded by the fact that the 2nd Respondent is a public body whose funding is met by the taxpayer and the counsel for the 2nd Respondent is internal to the 2nd Respondent. Thus, the costs upon withdrawal, if they were to be awarded, would likely be nominal and the 2nd Respondent can in any case pursue them in other avenues if it wishes.
10. Consequently, I order and direct that this Petition be and is hereby marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs.
11. Orders accordingly. File closed accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025.
BAHATI MWAMUYE MBS
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Counsel for the Petitioner – Mr. Mabachi and Ms. Imani
Counsel for the 1st Respondent – Mr. Maatwa
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent – Ms. Kisabei
Court Assistant – Ms. Neema Lwambia
'