Wakilii

Bank of Africa Uganda Ltd v Kayonza Distributors Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2013)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 131 · 2017 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation ruling on bill of costs in Civil Suit No. 3/2013
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents

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 dismissed the appeal against the taxation ruling. The Court held that the burden of proof lies on the party opposing amounts claimed during taxation, that Regulation 37 properly applies the 6th Schedule to contentious proceedings, and that the taxing officer has discretion under Regulation 42 to allow separate bills of costs where defendants file separate pleadings, even if represented by the same advocate.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

Bank of Africa Uganda Ltd filed an originating summons to foreclose a mortgage against the respondents. The originating summons contained fatal errors and was withdrawn with costs awarded to the defendants. The Registrar taxed the respondents' bills of costs under the 6th Schedule. The 1st and 3rd respondents, though represented by the same advocate, filed separate bills of costs as they had instructed counsel at different times and had separate defences. The Bank appealed the taxation ruling on three grounds: lack of evidence in proof of payment, use of the wrong schedule, and improper allowance of separate bills for defendants with the same advocate.

Issues

  1. Whether the Registrar erred in taxing a party-to-party bill of costs in the absence of evidence in proof of payment.
  2. Whether the Registrar erred in taxing a bill of costs under the 6th Schedule instead of the 5th Schedule for a non-contentious matter.
  3. Whether the Registrar erred in taxing separate bills of costs for two defendants represented by the same advocate.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Burden of Proof
On taxation of costs, the burden of proof lies on the party who opposes the amounts claimed; where no evidence is produced in opposition to the claimed amounts, the taxation stands.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — 6th Schedule Application
Under Regulation 37 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, bills of costs incurred in contentious proceedings in the High Court shall be taxable according to the rates prescribed in the 6th Schedule, not the 5th Schedule which applies to non-contentious matters.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Separate Bills for Multiple Defendants
Regulation 42 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations grants the taxing officer discretion to allow separate bills of costs where two or more defendants file separate pleadings, even if represented by the same advocate, unless the taxing officer finds that costs were unnecessarily or improperly incurred by the separate proceedings.

Legislation cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bank of Africa Uganda Ltd v Kayonza Distributors Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2013) [2017] UGCommC 131 (24 July 2017)
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.