Wakilii

Asule Emmanuel v Turlnensi Zedeka and Another (Taxation Appeal 32 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 150 · 2026 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from Deputy Registrar's ruling allowing two separate bills of costs
Decision
Taxation ruling set aside; respondents directed to present one consolidated bill of costs for fresh taxation

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 where parties file a joint defence through the same advocate and conduct all proceedings jointly, the advocate may not file separate bills of costs for taxation. Regulation 42 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018 permits separate bills only where separate proceedings were taken and found necessary. The taxation ruling allowing two separate bills was set aside.

Outcome

Taxation ruling set aside; respondents directed to present one consolidated bill of costs for fresh taxation

Facts

The appellant filed Civil Suit No. 506 of 2019 against the respondents seeking eviction, permanent injunction, and damages regarding land at Buyego Village. The respondents, represented by the same law firm, filed a Joint Written Statement of Defence and conducted all subsequent proceedings jointly. The respondents were successful and awarded costs. Their counsel then filed two separate bills of costs, one for each respondent, each claiming UGX 17,986,000. The appellant objected during taxation on 27 November 2024, arguing that separate bills were improper where parties filed a joint defence through the same counsel. The Deputy Registrar delivered a ruling on 28 January 2025 allowing both bills. The appellant filed this taxation appeal on 16 April 2025, after receiving a copy of the ruling from the respondents' counsel on 25 March 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal should be struck out for being filed out of time.
  2. Whether the Taxing Master erred in law and fact by allowing two separate Bills of Costs for Respondents represented by the same counsel.

Orders

  • The Taxation Appeal No. 0032 of 2025 is allowed.
  • The Taxation Ruling of the learned Deputy Registrar in Taxation Application No. 59 of 2024 is set aside.
  • The Respondents are directed to present one bill of costs for taxation before a Deputy Registrar of the court.
  • The Costs of this Appeal are awarded to the Appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Multiple Parties Represented by Same Counsel — Joint Defence
Where the same advocate represents two or more parties who file a joint defence and conduct all proceedings jointly without separate pleadings or separate proceedings, the advocate may not file separate bills of costs for taxation. Regulation 42 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018 permits separate bills only where separate proceedings were taken by or on behalf of the parties and such proceedings are found necessary and proper by the taxing officer.
Appeals — Time Limits — Good Cause for Extension
Under Section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act, an appeal from a taxation ruling must be filed within seven days of the ruling. However, the appellate court may admit an appeal filed out of time where good cause is shown. Where an appellant was not notified of a change in the delivery date of a ruling and only became aware of it upon receiving a copy from opposing counsel, this constitutes good cause for the delay.
Statutory Interpretation — Plain Meaning Rule
In statutory interpretation, where statutory words are plain and unambiguous, the court must give the words their natural and ordinary meaning. The word 'and' in a statutory provision has a cumulative sense requiring the fulfilment of all the conditions it joins together.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Bank of Uganda v Sudhir Ruparelia & Meera Investments Ltd (Taxation Reference No. 1 of 2023)
  • Abley v Dale, 20 L.J.C.P (N.S) 233 (1850)
  • Duport Steel vs Sirs, QRD 1980
  • Ishwar Singh Bindra v State of U.P, AIR 1968 SC 1450, 1454

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Asule_Emmanuel_v_Turlnensi_Zedeka_and_Another_(Taxation_Appeal_32_of_2025)_[2026]_UGHCLD_150_(27_April_2026)
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.