Ebetu and 2 Others v Etiru and 11 Others (Taxation Reference 1 of 2023)
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 costs totalling UGX 19,616,000 awarded in a taxation application must be set aside where the person who represented the successful parties was not an enrolled advocate. Section 69 of the Advocates Act prohibits recovery of costs for work done by unqualified persons. The court directed criminal proceedings against the unqualified person under section 64 of the Advocates Act.
Outcome
Taxation ruling set aside; unenrolled practitioner to face criminal charges
Facts
The applicants filed Civil Suit No. 08 of 2015 in the High Court which was dismissed on 31 March 2022. The respondents then filed a bill of costs which was taxed at UGX 19,616,000. The applicants discovered that Charles Ariko, who had represented the first seven respondents during the suit proceedings, was not an enrolled advocate according to records from the Chief Registrar. Court records confirmed that Ariko Charles had appeared for the respondents on multiple dates between 2017 and 2021. The respondents contended they were represented by M/s Atigo & Co. Advocates as a firm, not by Ariko Charles individually.
Issues
- Whether the taxation ruling arising out of Miscellaneous Application No. 03 of 2022 be set aside?
Orders
- The unlawful award of costs of UGX 19,616,000 vide Taxation Application No. 56 of 2022 to Charles Ariko is set aside.
- Charles Ariko is ordered to be charged in a criminal offence under Section 69 of the Advocates Act, Cap 267 for acting as an advocate whereas he was not.
- The costs of this application to be met personally by Charles Ariko.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.