Wakilii

Francis Kamugisha v Baguma Shaffi and Another (Civil Suit No. 12 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 734 · 2025 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection raised during taxation proceedings arising from dismissal of earlier civil suit
Decision
Matter remitted to Taxing Master for completion of taxation proceedings

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 court held that Regulation 48(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, requiring endorsement of the name and address of the person entitled to receive notice of taxation, is directory rather than mandatory. The omission to endorse such details on a bill of costs is not fatal to taxation proceedings, as the notice of taxation served under Regulation 9 remedies any shortcoming. The preliminary objection was overruled.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Taxing Master for completion of taxation proceedings

Facts

The defendants in Civil Suit No. 24 of 2023 filed a bill of costs for taxation following dismissal of that suit. During taxation proceedings (HCTA No. 11 of 2024), the plaintiff's counsel raised a preliminary objection that the bill did not comply with Regulation 48(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations because it failed to endorse the name and address of the advocate or person entitled to receive notice of taxation. The plaintiff relied on Nalunga Norah v Ndegeya Moses, where non-compliance with Rule 48(1) rendered taxation a nullity. The defendants argued this was a misinterpretation of the regulation. The Assistant Registrar referred the preliminary point to the High Court for determination under Order 50 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant/Defendants' bill of costs complied with the mandatory requirements of Regulation 48(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.
  2. Whether failure to endorse the name and address of the advocate or person entitled to receive notice of taxation on the bill of costs renders the taxation proceedings a nullity.
  3. Whether the word 'shall' in Regulation 48(1) is mandatory or directory in nature.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Parties ordered to present themselves before the Taxing Master to complete the taxation process.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Compliance with Regulation 48(1) — Mandatory versus Directory Requirements
Regulation 48(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, which requires a bill of costs to be endorsed with the name and address of the advocate or person entitled to receive notice of taxation, is directory rather than mandatory in nature.
Statutory Interpretation — Use of 'Shall' — Mandatory versus Directory Provisions
Although the word 'shall' in a statutory provision prima facie gives it a mandatory character, there is no universal rule for determining whether it is used in a mandatory or directory sense; the determination depends on the context and purpose of the provision.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Service of Notice — Remedying Defects in Bill of Costs
Where a bill of costs fails to endorse the name and address of the person entitled to receive notice of taxation, service of the notice of taxation under Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations remedies the shortcoming and the omission is not fatal to the taxation proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Nature of Taxation Proceedings — Separate Suit Requiring Fresh Instructions
Taxation proceedings constitute a distinct suit from the main proceedings from which the bill of costs arises, requiring separate instructions to counsel; a party preparing a bill of costs cannot be expected to know which advocate will receive instructions for the taxation until such instructions are given.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • Nalunga Norah v Ndegeya Moses & Nalugwa Sofina (HCCA No. 17 of 2008)
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Sam K. Njuba and the Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 26 of 2007)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Francis Kamugisha v Baguma Shaffi and Another (Civil Suit No. 12 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 734 (14 July 2025)
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.