Byamugisha v National Social Security Fund (Civil Reference No. 19 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

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction to tax an advocate/client bill of costs is vested in the High Court under section 80 of the Advocates Act and Rule 109(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, not in the Court of Appeal. Section 11 of the Judicature Act is confined to hearing and determining appeals and does not extend to such taxation, and the court's inherent jurisdiction need not be invoked where a specific statutory provision exists. Because advocate/client bills differ materially from party-to-party bills and additional remuneration may be sought before the High Court, requiring taxation there at the High Court scale does not violate Articles 21, 26 or 28 of the Constitution. The Reference was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Reference dismissed; taxation of the advocate/client bill of costs to be conducted by the High Court

Facts

The applicant, an advocate, was retained by the respondent National Social Security Fund to act as legal counsel in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2004 from 2 October 2003 until instructions were withdrawn on 20 May 2011. On 2 June 2011 the applicant forwarded to the respondent a bill of costs for legal services rendered and demanded settlement; the respondent refused. On 20 July 2011 the applicant lodged the advocate/client bill of costs in the Court of Appeal for taxation. At the taxation hearing the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the bill was taxable only by the High Court. By a ruling dated 17 February 2012 the Assistant Registrar of the Court of Appeal upheld the objection, holding that jurisdiction to tax an advocate/client bill of costs was vested in the High Court and not the Court of Appeal. The applicant referred that ruling to a single Justice of the Court of Appeal.

Issues

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

Orders

• The Reference is dismissed.
• Costs of the Reference awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (18)

• Judicature Act cap.13 s.10
• Judicature Act cap.13 s.11
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 109
• Advocates Act cap.267 s.55
• Advocates Act cap.267 s.57
• Advocates Act cap.267 s.58
• Advocates Act cap.267 s.60
• Advocates Act cap.267 s.80
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations reg.5
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations reg.6
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations reg.10(1)
• Civil Procedure Act s.27
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rules 1, 2 and 3
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 21
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 26
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 28
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 274

Cases cited (17)

• Mukasa V Bakireke [2009] 2EA 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 [1986] 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 [1998] EA 392
• Adonia V Mutekanga (1970) EA 429
• Kituuma Magala & Co Advocates v Celtel Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2010)
• Goodwin V Storrar (1947) KB 457
• 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)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

• Lubega Leonald v Commissioner for Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause 34 of 2023)
• Lubega Leonald v Commissioner for Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause 34 of 2023)
• In The Matter of Sunshine Agro Products Limited (In Administration) (Miscellaneous Appliaction No. 344 of 2019)

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