Mwogezaddembe v Gagawala Wambuzi Election Petition No.2 of 2001 held: “There is another dimension to such petitions; the quest for better conduct of elections in future…..Keeping quiet over weaknesses in the electoral process for fear of heavy penalties by way of costs in the event of losing the petition.. would serve to undermine the very foundation and spirit of good governance.” 10 Furthermore, in the present case very pertinent issues were diligently raised and prosecuted in a remarkably expeditious manner. A party that exhibits such judicious conduct of their case should be applauded and need not, in my view, suffer costs. Particularly so, in an election that by law should be expeditiously prosecuted. Consequently, in exercise of the court’s discretion, I do refrain from making any order as to costs. Each party shall bear their costs.” The trial judge gave reasons for her decision. In order to succeed on this issue the cross-appellant has to demonstrate that the reasons given for the exercise of discretion were not based on facts in the case. Mr Kibedi submitted that the reasons given by the trial judge were wrong in law 20 and were not founded on evidence on record. He cited the case of Kiska Ltd v De Angelis [1969] EA 6 where the court held that a successful party can only be deprived of his costs when it is shown that his conduct either prior to or during the course of the suit, has led to litigation, which, but for his own conduct might have been averted, Learned counsel contended that the reasons given were not good. Mr Tebyasa on the other hand supported the trial judge’s exercise of discretion and the reasons she gave. He claimed that the cross-appellant has not shown how erroneous the reasons advanced by the trial judge were. 31