Wakilii

Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Ahmed Bhimji Ltd (CIVIL APPEAL REFERENCE NO.002 OF 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 115 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal by Chamber Summons against taxation award of costs arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2015
Decision
Appeal dismissed; taxation award upheld; execution permitted to proceed

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 the appeal against the taxation award was filed out of time, nine days after the thirty-day statutory period under Section 62(1) of the Advocates Act had expired. The court cannot condone such illegality. Additionally, the Appellant was duly served and represented during taxation proceedings. The appeal was dismissed, the taxation award maintained, and execution permitted to proceed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; taxation award upheld; execution permitted to proceed

Facts

The Respondent obtained a taxation award on 3 April 2019 for costs totaling UGX 174,388,000 (comprising UGX 106,613,000 in Advocates' costs and UGX 67,775,000 in Bailiffs' costs). The Respondent served a demand letter on the Appellant on 4 April 2019 and subsequently initiated garnishee proceedings to enforce the award. The Appellant filed an appeal by Chamber Summons on 13 May 2019, challenging the taxation on grounds that it was not effectively served with the taxation hearing notice and that the taxed costs were exorbitant and unjustified in the absence of a certificate of complexity. The Respondent opposed the appeal, arguing it was filed outside the thirty-day statutory period prescribed by Section 62(1) of the Advocates Act, and that the Appellant had been duly served and represented during taxation.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal against the taxation award was filed within the time prescribed by Section 62(1) of the Advocates Act.
  2. Whether the Appellant was effectively served with the taxation hearing notice.
  3. Whether the taxed costs of UGX 174,388,000 were exorbitant and unjustified in the absence of a certificate of complexity.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Taxation award maintained.
  • Execution to proceed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Appeals against Taxation — Time Limits
An appeal against an order or decision of a taxing officer must be filed within thirty days of the taxation as prescribed by Section 62(1) of the Advocates Act, and a court cannot condone an appeal filed out of time as such illegality cannot be countenanced.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Service of Taxation Hearing Notice
Where an appellant was represented by counsel during taxation proceedings and an affidavit of service proves due service of the taxation hearing notice, the appellant cannot subsequently claim lack of effective service to challenge the taxation award.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

  • Uganda National Examination Board v Management of Kibiito Primary School (Civil Appeals No. 034, 035 & 036 of 2015)
  • Commissioner of Customs, Revenue Authority v Kasibo Joshua (HCT-00-CC-CA-9-2008)
  • Makula International Ltd v Emmanuel Cardinal Wamala & Another [1982] HCB 11

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Departed Asians Property Custodian Board Vs Ahmed Bhimji Ltd (CIVIL APPEAL_REFERENCE NO.002 OF 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 115 (28 May 2019)
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.