Kampala District Land Board v Babweyaka & 3 Others (Civil Reference 2 of 2009)

Supreme Court · [2009] UGSC 37 · 2009 Reference Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Preliminary objection to a reference from a taxing officer's decision to a single judge of the Supreme Court

Decision

Reference dismissed as incompetent with costs

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 Supreme Court (single judge) upheld a preliminary objection and dismissed a reference challenging a taxing officer's award of costs. The court held that a reference from a taxing officer's decision to a single judge is in the nature of an appeal, so the principle in Ahmad Bin Ahmad applies. Because the taxed costs were awarded against both the applicant and its co-appellant Mitala jointly, the applicant was obliged to name Mitala as a party and serve him with the memorandum and record of reference. Copying the request letter to Mitala's lawyers was insufficient, and his apparent satisfaction could not be assumed without service. The reference was therefore incompetent and dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant, Kampala District Land Board, and George Mitala were co-appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007, which they lost with costs to the respondents. The respondents' bill of costs was taxed and allowed at UGX 20,502,500, of which UGX 20,000,000 was an instruction fee. Dissatisfied, the applicant wrote to the Registrar requesting a reference of the taxation decision to a single judge under rule 106(1), copying the letter to Mitala's advocates. The applicant then filed a memorandum of reference naming only itself as applicant and the respondents, without naming Mitala or serving him with the memorandum and record. The respondents objected that, because the costs were awarded against the applicant and Mitala jointly and recoverable from either, the reference could not proceed without Mitala being made a party and served.

Issues

Whether a reference from the decision of a taxing officer to a single judge is in the nature of an appeal.
Whether the reference is incompetent for failure to name and serve a co-party against whom the taxed costs were also awarded.

Orders

Preliminary objection upheld.
Reference dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Reference from a taxing officer to a single judge — Nature of the reference

A reference from the decision of a taxing officer to a single judge is in the nature of an appeal, and the principles governing the constitution of appeals apply to it.

Civil Procedure — Reference — Necessary parties — Joinder and service of a co-party against whom the decision was given

Where a decision is given against two parties jointly, a reference challenging that decision must name the co-party and serve the memorandum and record of reference on him; failure to do so renders the reference incompetent.

Civil Procedure — Reference — Service — Copying request letter to co-party's advocates insufficient

Copying a letter requesting a reference to a co-party's advocates does not amount to making him a party or serving him; a court cannot assume he is satisfied with the award unless he has been served with the memorandum and record of reference.

Legislation cited (1)

Rules of the Supreme Court r.106(1)

Cases cited (3)

Tibebaga v Fr. Norsensio Beguma & Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 2002)
Ahmad Bin Ahmad Kassim Kasais v Syed Abdalla [1958] EA 60
Bitahwa Nyine Samson v Ishanga Ndyanabo (Election Petition Appeal No. 14 of 2008)

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.