Byamugisha & Another v National Social Security Fund (Civil Reference 2 of 2012)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

On a reference from the Registrar's taxation ruling, the single judge held that Rule 105(1) of the Supreme Court Rules empowers the Registrar to tax only party-to-party costs and does not confer jurisdiction to tax an advocate/client bill of costs. Where statutory words are clear they must be given their plain meaning, and jurisdiction must be conferred by law, not inferred from general constitutional provisions on fair trial and equal treatment. The power to tax an advocate/client bill of costs is vested in the Registrar of the High Court under section 80 of the Advocates Act, so there is no lacuna in the law. The reference failed and the cross-reference succeeded.

Outcome

Reference dismissed and cross-reference allowed; the Registrar of the Supreme Court held to have no power to tax the advocate/client bill of costs, that power being vested in the Registrar of the High Court

Facts

The applicant advocate had been instructed by the respondent to act in a Supreme Court civil appeal and was paid UGX 233,333,333 on account of instruction fees and disbursements. The applicant filed an advocate/client bill of costs and sought to have it taxed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court. The respondent raised preliminary objections, including that the Registrar of the Supreme Court had no power to tax an advocate/client bill of costs, that power being vested in the Registrar of the High Court under section 80 of the Advocates Act. The Registrar overruled the first two objections but upheld the third, finding a lacuna in the Supreme Court rules and that the advocate's remedy was to file a suit to recover his costs. Both parties were dissatisfied, leading to this reference and cross-reference to a single judge.

Issues

1. Whether the Registrar of the Supreme Court has power to tax an advocate/client bill of costs arising from a Supreme Court appeal.
2. Whether there is a lacuna in the law regarding the taxation of advocate/client bills of costs arising from Supreme Court proceedings.

Orders

• The reference fails.
• The cross reference succeeds.
• Costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (22)

• Advocates Act s.55
• Advocates Act s.57
• Advocates Act s.60(2)
• Advocates Act s.65(3)
• Advocates Act s.80
• Judicature Act s.7
• Judicature Act s.14
• Judicature Act s.43
• Constitution Article 126(2)
• Constitution Article 21
• Constitution Article 28
• Constitution Article 44
• Constitution Article 45
• Constitution Article 132
• Constitution Article 139
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules r.10(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.105
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.106(1)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.2(2)
• Court of Appeal Rules r.109(3)

Cases cited (6)

• Kibuka Musoke & Co. Advocates Vs Liquidator of African Textile Mill Ltd
• Sharma Vs Uhuru High Way Development Ltd [2001] 2 E.A 530
• Alcon International Ltd v New Vision Printing and Publishing Co Ltd and Another (Civil Application No. 4 of 2010)
• Baku Raphael Obudra and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 15 of 2005)
• Beatrice Kobusingye v Fiona Nyakana and Another (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2004)
• Kituma Magala & Co Advocates v Celtel (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2010)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Byamugisha v National Social Security Fund (HCT-00-CC-CA 16 of 2013)

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