Sentongo v Shell (U) Limited & Another (Civil Reference 1 of 2008)

Supreme Court · [2008] UGSC 24 · 2008 Preliminary Objection Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Ruling on a preliminary objection in a reference from the decision of the Taxing Officer to a single Judge of the Supreme Court

Decision

Preliminary objection overruled; the main application (reference from taxation) ordered to proceed to hearing.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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

The court overruled a preliminary objection seeking to strike out a reference from a Taxing Officer's decision. Following General Parts (U) Ltd v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust, it held that an application for a reference under rule 106(5) is in the nature of a notice to the Registrar, not an application on which a judicial decision is made, and therefore need not specify the grounds of reference. The applicant's letter, conceded to be within time, was a proper application. Although the Rules contain no specific provision for a memorandum of reference, that procedure is established by practice analogous to an ordinary appeal, is not prejudicial, and occasions no miscarriage of justice. The objection was dismissed and the main application ordered to proceed.

Facts

The applicant was dissatisfied with a decision of the Taxing Officer (the Registrar of the Supreme Court) dated 27 May 2008 in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2007. By letter dated 30 May 2008 to the Registrar, made within the seven days prescribed by rule 106(5), the applicant applied for a reference of the taxation ruling to a Judge of the court and also requested a typed copy of the taxation proceedings to enable formulation of the grounds of reference. After receiving the typed proceedings, the applicant filed a memorandum of reference on 16 June 2008 setting out the grounds. At the commencement of the hearing of the reference, counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection contending that the letter was defective for not specifying the applicant's grievances and that the memorandum was not provided for under the Rules and was filed out of time.

Issues

Whether the applicant's letter applying for a reference under rule 106(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court was defective for failing to specify the points or grounds for reference as required by sub-rules 1 and 3 of rule 106.
Whether a memorandum of reference, though not provided for under the Rules, may properly be filed after receipt of a typed copy of the taxation proceedings.

Orders

Preliminary objection overruled.
Hearing of the main application to proceed now.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Reference to a Judge — Application under Rule 106(5)

An application to the Registrar for a reference of a taxing officer's decision to a Judge under rule 106(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court is in the nature of a notice, not an application on which the Registrar makes a judicial decision, and need not specify the points or grounds of reference; failure to state the grounds in the letter does not render it defective.

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Memorandum of Reference — Procedure Established by Practice

Although the Rules of the Supreme Court contain no specific provision for a memorandum of reference, the procedure of drawing and filing a memorandum setting out the grounds after receipt of a typed copy of the taxation proceedings is established by practice analogous to an ordinary appeal, is not prejudicial to the opposite party, and occasions no miscarriage of justice.

Statutory Interpretation — Rules of Court — Scope of Rights and Obligations Created by Rule 106(1), (3) and (5)

Sub-rules 1 and 3 of rule 106 are concerned with the right to require a reference to a Judge and the scope of that right, while sub-rule 5 stipulates who must be required to make the reference and the time within which to do so; an application requiring grounds to be stated is one seeking a decision of the court by motion, which a reference application to the Registrar is not.

Legislation cited (5)

Rules of the Supreme Court r.106(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.106(3)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.106(5)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.41
Rules of the Supreme Court r.42(1)

Cases cited (3)

General Parts (U) Ltd v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Application No. 21 of 2000)
Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)

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.