Wakilii

Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Application No. 76 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 202 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for declarations and orders arising from taxation proceedings following dismissal of main cause
Decision
Application dismissed as incompetent

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

Held that an application seeking declarations and orders concerning the legality of a costs award and taxation proceedings was incompetent where it did not meet the statutory threshold for a reference under section 68 of the Advocates Act. The applicant attempted to invent a third way of bringing a reference contrary to the express provisions requiring either the taxing officer's own motion or consent of both parties. The proper remedy was an appeal under section 68(1) of the Advocates Act or Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed as incompetent

Facts

The applicant had sued the respondent for human rights violations. The case was heard and dismissed by Justice Michael Elubu on 5 February 2022. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal. During taxation proceedings, the applicant raised objections concerning the legality of the costs award, alleging that Mr. Mugira Kenneth, who represented the respondent, was not qualified to practice in the High Court during the conduct of the case. The applicant sought a reference to a judge under section 68 of the Advocates Act. The taxing officer advised the applicant to make a formal application stating grounds for the reference. The applicant attempted to obtain consent from the respondent, which was refused. The taxing officer stayed taxation proceedings pending determination of the appeal. The applicant then brought this application seeking declarations that the costs award was null and void, and claiming damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is properly before Court?
  2. Whether the application raises a case for reference of the Taxation Application to the Judge?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Reference to Judge — Statutory Requirements
Under section 68(2) and (3) of the Advocates Act, a reference of a taxation dispute to a judge of the High Court may only be made by the taxing officer on his or her own motion, or by the taxing officer upon consent of both parties. An application by a party seeking to compel a reference does not meet the statutory threshold and is incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Taxation Decisions — Proper Remedy
Under section 68(1) of the Advocates Act and Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, any person affected by an order or decision of a taxing officer may appeal within 30 days to a judge of the High Court. This is the proper remedy for challenging a taxing officer's decision, not an application for reference.
Civil Procedure — Competence of Proceedings — Wrong Procedure — Substance over Form
While citing a wrong law or not citing any law at all is not fatal to an application provided jurisdiction exists, the principle of substance over form does not cure the adoption of a totally wrong or non-existing procedure. Where the defect is as to the very nature and substance of the application, not merely a technicality or matter of form, the application is incompetent.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (3)

  • Saggu v Road Master Uganda Limited [2000] EALR 255
  • Nanjibhi Prabhudas & Co. Ltd v Standard Bank Ltd [19568] EA
  • Re Christine Namatovu Tebajjukira [1992-93] HCB 85

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Application No. 76 of 2023) [2025] UGHCCD 202 (20 November 2025)
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.