Wakilii

Airtel Uganda Limited v Haji Musa (Miscellaneous Appeal 6 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 151 · 2023 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of bill of costs following dismissed application in underlying trespass suit
Decision
Taxation of bill of costs set aside as having been conducted under wrong legal regime

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 court held that liability to pay costs accrues when the court makes the order for costs, not when the bill is taxed. Where costs were ordered on 3 August 2017 before the 2018 Amendment Regulations came into force, the taxation must be conducted under the 2000 Regulations in force at the time the liability accrued. Section 13(2) of the Interpretation Act protects accrued rights and the 2018 Regulations have no retrospective effect.

Outcome

Taxation of bill of costs set aside as having been conducted under wrong legal regime

Facts

The Respondent successfully sued the Appellant for trespass to land in HCCS No.51 of 2012. The Appellant's subsequent application (HCMA No.69 of 2017) was dismissed with costs on 3 August 2017. The Respondent filed a bill of costs for UGX 26,055,000 which the Registrar taxed to UGX 7,585,000 on 27 March 2019 applying the 2018 Amendment Regulations. The Appellant did not participate in the taxation, objecting that the wrong legal regime had been applied. The Appellant appealed, arguing that since the order for costs was made in 2017, the 2000 Regulations should apply, not the 2018 Regulations.

Issues

  1. Whether the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (S.I No.7 of 2018) apply to taxation of costs where the order for costs was made before the Regulations came into force.
  2. Which Regulations govern taxation of costs when liability to pay costs accrued under an earlier legal regime.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The taxed sum of UGX 7,585,000 is set aside.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the Appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Applicable Legal Regime — When Liability to Pay Costs Accrues
Liability to pay costs accrues when the court makes the order for costs, not when the bill of costs is subsequently taxed or filed. The taxation process only determines the quantum of costs to be paid.
Statutory Interpretation — Retrospective Application — Accrued Rights — Interpretation Act s.13(2)
Where a law or regulation is repealed or amended, section 13(2) of the Interpretation Act provides that the repeal does not affect a right, privilege, obligation or liability which had accrued before the repeal came into effect. Amended regulations on taxation of costs do not apply retrospectively to orders for costs made before the amendments came into force.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Amendment of Regulations — Application to Pending Matters
Where an order for costs was made under one set of Regulations, taxation of those costs must be conducted under the Regulations in force at the time the liability accrued, not under subsequently enacted Regulations, even if the bill of costs is filed and taxed after the new Regulations come into force.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Interpretation Act s.13(2)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (S.I No.7 of 2018)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2000 (S.I No.267-4 of 2000)

Cases cited (2)

  • Total (U) Ltd v Rozenbel Twinamasiko (High Court Commercial Appeal No. 29 of 2019)
  • Uganda Bankers (Employers Association) v National Union of Clerical Commercial, Professional & Technical Employees (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1996) [1998] KALR 388

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Airtel Uganda Limited v Haji Musa (Miscellaneous Appeal 6 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 151 (10 November 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.