Wakilii

Byamugisha t a J.B. Byamugisha Advocates v National Social Security Fund (Civil Reference No.I9 of 2012)

Court of Appeal · [2013] UGCA 2056 · 2013 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single Justice of the Court of Appeal from a ruling of the Assistant Registrar on a preliminary objection in taxation proceedings
Decision
Reference dismissed; the Assistant Registrar's ruling that jurisdiction to tax an advocate/client bill of costs vests in the High Court upheld

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 single Justice dismissed the reference, holding that the Court of Appeal has no constitutional or inherent jurisdiction to tax an advocate/client bill of costs. Section 80 of the Advocates Act and Rule 109(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules expressly vest that jurisdiction in the High Court's registrar, while Rule 109(1) reserves party-and-party taxation to the Court of Appeal. Section 11 of the Judicature Act is confined to hearing and determining appeals and does not extend to advocate/client taxation. Because advocate/client bills differ materially from party-and-party bills and often arise outside court proceedings, requiring their taxation in the court of original jurisdiction, with a right to prove additional remuneration under Regulations 5 and 6, causes no injustice and does not breach Articles 21, 26 or 28.

Outcome

Reference dismissed; the Assistant Registrar's ruling that jurisdiction to tax an advocate/client bill of costs vests in the High Court upheld

Facts

The applicant, an advocate practising as J.B. Byamugisha Advocates, was retained by the respondent, National Social Security Fund, from October 2003 to May 2011 to act as counsel in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2004 (NSSF & Ssentoogo v Alcon International Ltd). When instructions were withdrawn, the applicant submitted an advocate/client bill of costs for the legal services rendered. The respondent refused to settle. On 20 July 2011 the applicant lodged the bill in the Court of Appeal for taxation through Civil Application No. 217 of 2011, relying on provisions of the Advocates Act, the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations and the Civil Procedure Rules. At the taxation hearing the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the bill was taxable only by the High Court. On 17 February 2012 the Assistant Registrar upheld the objection, ruling that jurisdiction to tax an advocate/client bill of costs was vested in the High Court, not the Court of Appeal. The applicant brought this reference challenging that ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal Rules must be specifically cited in the intitulement of an application to invoke concurrent jurisdiction to tax an advocate/client bill of costs.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal has constitutional or inherent jurisdiction to tax an advocate/client bill of costs arising from appeals and proceedings before it.
  3. Whether Rule 109(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, requiring an advocate/client bill of costs to be taxed in the High Court, contravenes Articles 21, 26 and 28 of the Constitution.

Orders

  • The Reference is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Advocate/Client Bill of Costs — Jurisdiction of the High Court
Jurisdiction to tax an advocate/client bill of costs is vested exclusively in the High Court under section 80 of the Advocates Act and Rule 109(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules; the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to tax such a bill even where it arises from an appeal determined by that court.
Costs — Distinction between Party-and-Party and Advocate/Client Bills of Costs
A party-and-party bill of costs, taxed on the standard basis, is founded on the termination of a court action and is taxable by the court determining that action; an advocate/client bill of costs, taxed on the indemnity basis, is between advocate and client, need not arise from court proceedings, and is properly taxed by the court of original jurisdiction.
Inherent Jurisdiction — Effect of Express Statutory Provision
The existence of an express statutory provision, such as section 80 of the Advocates Act and Rule 109(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, precludes resort to the court's inherent jurisdiction under Rule 2(2) to assume a power the statute has assigned elsewhere.
Judicature Act — Scope of Section 11 — Powers on Hearing and Determining Appeals
Section 11 of the Judicature Act confers on the Court of Appeal the powers of the court of original jurisdiction only for the purpose of hearing and determining an appeal, and does not extend to the taxation of an advocate/client bill of costs.
Equal Protection — Article 21 — Non-identical Treatment Where Justified
Equal protection of the law under Article 21 does not require identical treatment in all circumstances; a statutory scheme requiring advocate/client bills to be taxed at the High Court scale, while party-and-party bills of the same case are taxed at the higher Court of Appeal scale, does not contravene Articles 21, 26 or 28 where the differing treatment is justified by the different nature of the bills and additional remuneration may be sought under Regulations 5 and 6.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (17)

  • Mukasa V Bakireke [2009] 2 EA 254
  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Services Limited (Civil Reference No. 13 of 2005)
  • Hope Bahimbisomwe v Julius Rwabinumi (Civil Reference No. 1 of 2005)
  • Saggu V Roadmaster Cycles (U) Limited [2002] 1 EA 258
  • National Union of Clerical, Commercial, Professional and Technical Employees v National Insurance Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Mudavadi Vs Kibisu [1970] EA 585
  • Italframe Limited Vs Mediterranean Shipping Co [1986-1989] EA 174
  • The owners of the motor vessel "Joey" Vs The owners and Masters of the Motor Tugs "Barbara" and "Steve B" [2008] 1 EA 367
  • Kagenyi Vs Musiramo and Another [1968] EA 43
  • Ryan Investments Ltd and Another Vs The United States of America [1970] EA 675
  • Ahmed Hassam Mulji Vs Shirinbhai Jadavji [1963] EA 217
  • Rawal V Mombasa Hardware Ltd [1968] EA 392
  • Adonia V Mutekanga (1970) EA 429
  • Goodwin V Storrar (1947) KB 457
  • Kituuma Magala & Co Advocates v Celtel Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2010)
  • Joseph B. Byamugisha t/a Byamugisha Advocates v National Social Security Fund (Civil Reference No. 2 of 2012)
  • Brown V Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1954)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Byamugisha t a J.B. Byamugisha Advocates v National Social Security Fund (Civil Reference No.I9 of 2012) [2013] UGCA 2056 (13 February 2013)
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.