Wakilii

Nantaba v Nabasirye & Another (Taxation Reference 291 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 276 · 2024 Reference Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single Justice of the Court of Appeal against the orders of the taxing master on a bill of costs
Decision
Taxation reference allowed; the taxing master's award of UGX 20,407,800 set aside as the Respondents were not entitled to costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

On a reference to a single Justice against a taxing master's award, the court held that the Civil Procedure Rules' service timelines for summons did not apply to a taxation reference, for which the Court of Appeal Rules prescribe no service period, and that no prejudice from late service was shown. On the merits, costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, so only a successful party is entitled to costs. As the Respondents were neither parties to nor participants in Election Petition Application No. 2 of 2015 (filed by and decided in favour of the Applicant), they incurred no costs warranting taxation. The reference succeeded and the award was set aside.

Facts

The Respondents filed a suit in Jinja High Court seeking a declaration that the Applicant was not qualified to be nominated to contest for Woman Member of Parliament for Kayunga District, and obtained an injunction restraining the Electoral Commission from nominating her. The Applicant filed Election Petition Application No. 1 of 2015 to stay the injunction, and the court granted an interim order staying its implementation in Election Petition Application No. 2 of 2015, which was heard ex-parte. The Applicant later withdrew Application No. 1 of 2015 with no order as to costs, but the court awarded costs to the Respondents in Application No. 2 of 2015. The Respondents filed a bill of costs of UGX 236,905,800, which the taxing master allowed at UGX 20,407,800. The Applicant brought this reference challenging both the quantum and the principle of awarding costs to the Respondents.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxation reference was rendered dismissed for failure to serve it within a prescribed time.
  2. Whether the taxing master ought to have entertained the bill of costs where the Respondents were neither parties to nor participants in the application in which costs were awarded.
  3. Whether the Respondents were entitled to costs in a matter that was determined ex-parte.

Orders

  • The reference succeeds.
  • The Respondents shall pay the costs of this application to the Applicant.

Key headnotes

Costs — Taxation Reference — Entitlement of a non-party to costs
Costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, so only the successful party is entitled to costs; a person who was neither a party to nor a participant in the proceedings in which costs were ordered is not entitled to any costs and incurs no expenses meriting taxation.
Costs — Taxation — Duty of the taxing officer to verify entitlement
Before entertaining a filed bill of costs, the taxing officer must verify the role played by the party claiming costs, as taxing the bill of a party not entitled to costs is an effort expended in vain.
Service — Taxation Reference — No prescribed service period
The Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions prescribe no period within which a taxation reference must be served on the opposite party; the service timelines for summons under the Civil Procedure Rules do not apply, and absent any demonstrated prejudice, late service will not defeat the reference.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature Act s.12(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 53(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 110(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 110(4)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Third Schedule rule 9(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 1(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 49 rule 2
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27

Cases cited (3)

  • Namuddu v Godfrey Rwabuganda (Civil Application No. 16 of 2014)
  • Sulaiti Dungu v Kateera Akuguzibwe (Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2015)
  • Francis Kimbugwe and Others v Birungi Deus (Civil Appeal No. 186 of 2013)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.