Wakilii

Administrator General v Kyomugisha and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 201 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCFD 47 · 2023 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Deputy Registrar's ruling in taxation proceedings arising from costs order in Civil Suit No. 092 of 2010
Decision
Deputy Registrar's ruling set aside; matter remitted for proper taxation with separate bills of costs for each law firm

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

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 High Court held that an advocate who received instructions only after judgment was delivered cannot present a bill of costs claiming instruction fees for the entire trial proceedings conducted by a different law firm. Such a bill is fundamentally false and must not be encouraged. The current advocate must file a separate bill for services actually rendered, and any costs due to the previous advocate must be claimed in a separate bill annexed as a disbursement. The appeal was allowed and the Deputy Registrar's ruling set aside.

Outcome

Deputy Registrar's ruling set aside; matter remitted for proper taxation with separate bills of costs for each law firm

Facts

The respondents successfully sued the Administrator General and another party in Civil Suit No. 092 of 2010, represented by M/s Mwesigwa Associated Advocates throughout trial until judgment. Costs were awarded to the respondents. The second defendant appealed the costs order up to the Supreme Court, where the costs were confirmed. During the appellate proceedings, the respondents instructed M/s Tuhimbise & Co. Advocates to take over conduct of the matter. In 2021, M/s Tuhimbise & Co. Advocates filed a notice of change of advocates and subsequently presented a bill of costs in Taxation Application No. 49 of 2021, claiming instruction fees of UGX 800,000,000 for the entire suit from 2010. The Administrator General objected, arguing that M/s Tuhimbise & Co. Advocates had no locus to claim fees for services they never rendered at trial. The Deputy Registrar dismissed the preliminary objection. The Administrator General appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether an affidavit sworn by an Assistant Administrator General on behalf of the Administrator General as a corporation sole is valid.
  2. Whether chamber summons served 104 days after endorsement but within 21 days of the hearing date being fixed were served out of time.
  3. Whether the Deputy Registrar erred in law by ignoring binding authorities from superior courts.
  4. Whether an advocate who did not represent a party during trial proceedings has locus to file a bill of costs for instruction fees relating to those trial proceedings.
  5. Whether the Deputy Registrar erred by addressing the constitutional right to legal representation when it was not in issue.

Orders

  • The orders of the Deputy Registrar/Taxing Officer in Taxation Application No. 49 of 2021 arising from HCCS No. 92 of 2010 are hereby set aside.
  • The preliminary objections by the appellant are upheld.
  • The respondents may lodge their own bill of costs claiming any costs due to them or if they wish to engage an advocate that advocate may amend the bill now filed or file two separate bills of costs namely one for the current advocate and the other for M/s Mwesigwa Associated Advocates the previous advocate.
  • Costs of this appeal are awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Locus of Successor Advocate — Bill of Costs Must Be Factual Statement
A bill of costs is a factual statement of services rendered and disbursements made. An advocate who did not represent a party during trial proceedings cannot present a bill of costs claiming instruction fees for those proceedings as if they had conducted the entire matter. Such a bill is fundamentally and absolutely false.
Taxation of Costs — Change of Advocates — Proper Form of Bill
Where advocates have been changed during proceedings, only the advocate on record for the time being can lodge or tax a bill. The bill of the first advocate may be annexed to that of the current advocate and its total shown as a disbursement. The current advocate must explain to the taxing officer what costs are due to them and what costs are due to the previous advocate.
Taxation of Costs — Successor Advocate Claiming Predecessor's Fees — Not Curable Under Article 126(2)(e)
A successor advocate presenting a bill of costs that falsely purports to show they were instructed from the commencement of proceedings and claiming instruction fees for work done by a predecessor is not merely a question of form curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution. It is a fundamental misrepresentation that must not be encouraged.
Administrator General — Capacity to Sue and Be Sued — Assistant Administrator General
The Administrator General is established as a corporation sole with legal capacity to sue or be sued. An Assistant Administrator General is included within the definition of Administrator General and has authority to swear affidavits and appear in proceedings on behalf of the Administrator General as a directorate.
Service of Summons — Validity and Completeness — Requirement of Hearing Date
Chamber summons are incomplete and incapable of valid service until they have been signed, sealed, and given a hearing date by the court. The mandatory timeline of 21 days for service of summons commences from the date the hearing date is fixed on the summons, not from the date of signing and sealing alone.
Stare Decisis — Binding Precedent — Duty to Follow Superior Court Decisions
Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a court of law is bound to adhere to previous decisions of superior courts save in exceptional cases where the previous decision is distinguishable, was overruled by a higher court on appeal, or was arrived at per incuriam without taking into account a law in force or a binding precedent.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (9)

  • Balwantrai D. Bhatt v Ajeet Singh & Another (1962 EA 103)
  • Hajji Hartjna Mtjlangwa v Shariff Osman (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 3 of 2004)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Law Society (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2006)
  • Bhagwanji Premchand and Others v J.M. Gomes and Others (1956) 23 EACA 296
  • HJK Trading Company Ltd v Ahmed Zziwa (HCMA No. 1452 of 2019)
  • Soroti Municipality Council v Pal Agencies (HCMA No. 181 of 2012)
  • Makumbi & Another v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 1 of 1994)
  • In re Taxation of costs: In re a Solicitor, [1943] 1 All E.R. 592
  • Polak v. Marchioness of Winchester, [1956] 1 W.L.R. 818

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Administrator General v Kyomugisha and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 201 of 2022) [2023] UGHCFD 47 (3 January 2023)
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.