Wakilii

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

High Court · [2023] UGHCFD 126 · 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 awarded in civil suit
Decision
Deputy Registrar's ruling set aside; matter remitted for proper filing of bills of costs in accordance with prescribed form

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 and did not appear on record during trial has no locus to file a bill of costs claiming instruction fees for the entire suit. A bill of costs must be a true factual statement of services actually rendered. Where advocates change during proceedings, the bill of the first advocate must be annexed separately to that of the current advocate as a disbursement. The Deputy Registrar's ruling allowing taxation of the improperly filed bill was set aside.

Outcome

Deputy Registrar's ruling set aside; matter remitted for proper filing of bills of costs in accordance with prescribed form

Facts

The respondents were awarded costs in HCCS No. 92 of 2010. They were represented by M/s Mwesigwa Associated Advocates throughout the trial until judgment. Subsequently, the respondents instructed M/s Tuhimbise & Co. Advocates who represented them at the appellate level. On 2 June 2021, M/s Tuhimbise & Co. Advocates filed a notice of change of advocates to take over conduct of the suit. They then filed 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, despite never appearing on record until after judgment. The Administrator General raised a preliminary objection that the new advocates lacked locus to claim fees for services they never rendered. The Deputy Registrar dismissed the objection. The Administrator General appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether an affidavit sworn by a Senior State Attorney as Assistant Administrator General is valid when the Administrator General is a party to proceedings.
  2. Whether chamber summons served 104 days after being signed and sealed but only one day after a hearing date was fixed were served out of time.
  3. Whether an advocate who did not appear on record during trial proceedings has locus to file a bill of costs claiming instruction fees for the entire suit.
  4. Whether the Deputy Registrar erred in law by ignoring binding precedent from superior courts.

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/respondent 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 Advocate — Change of Advocates — Bill of Costs as Factual Statement
A bill of costs must be a true factual statement of services actually rendered and disbursements actually made by the advocate presenting it. An advocate who received instructions only after judgment and did not appear on record during trial proceedings has no locus to file a bill of costs claiming instruction fees for services rendered during the trial period.
Taxation of Costs — Change of Advocates — Proper Form of Bill
Where advocates have been changed during proceedings, the bill of the first advocate must be listed separately on a separate bill and annexed to the bill of the current advocate with its total shown as a disbursement. The current advocate must explain to the taxing officer what costs are due to him or her and those due to the previous advocate. This requirement is not mere technicality but prevents a successor advocate from reaping where he or she never sowed.
Doctrine of Precedent — Stare Decisis — Binding Authority
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.
Service of Process — Chamber Summons — Time for Service
Chamber summons become valid and capable of service only when they have been given a date, signed and sealed by court. Until a hearing date is fixed on the summons, the applicant cannot effectively serve the summons upon the respondents. The mandatory timeline of 21 days for service of summons commences from the date the hearing date is fixed, not from the date of signing and sealing alone.
Administrator General — Status as Corporation Sole — Authority to Swear Affidavits
The Administrator General is established as a corporation sole with legal capacity to sue and be sued. An Assistant Administrator General has authority under the Administrator General's Act to swear an affidavit in proceedings instituted by the Administrator General as a directorate. Such an affidavit is sworn in the capacity of Administrator General, not as an advocate.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (9)

  • Balwantrai D. Bhatt v Ajeet Singh and Another (1962 EA 103)
  • Hartjna Mtjlangwa v Shariff Osman (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 and 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 126 (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.