Wakilii

Gukiina v Tebajanga & 3 Others (Civil Reference 63 of 2021; Civil Reference 64 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2022] UGSC 15 · 2022 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to consolidated references challenging a taxation ruling, heard by a single judge of the Supreme Court
Decision
Preliminary objections overruled; consolidated references to proceed to hearing on the merits

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

On a preliminary objection to consolidated references challenging a taxation ruling, the single judge held that rule 106(5) prescribes the time within which an application for a reference must be made to the Registrar — orally at taxation or in writing within seven days — and does not set a time limit for the reference itself (governed by rule 106(6)). The applicant's two letters, received within five days, were valid written applications for a reference. The service objection failed: service was effected the same day the references and hearing notices were sealed, and any irregularity as to the recipient was a technicality cured by Article 126(2)(e). Both objections were overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objections overruled; consolidated references to proceed to hearing on the merits

Facts

The applicant filed two references (Civil Reference Applications No. 63 and 64 of 2021), later consolidated, challenging a taxation ruling delivered by the Assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court sitting as Taxing Master on 26 November 2021. The ruling covered two bills of costs filed by the respondents, arising from the striking out of the applicant's notice of appeal for failure to prosecute and the dismissal of her application for leave to file an appeal out of time. On 1 December 2021, five days after the ruling, the applicant's advocates wrote two letters to the Registrar expressing dissatisfaction with the taxation ruling and seeking referral to a single justice, requesting certified copies to prepare a memorandum of reference. The references and hearing notices were sealed by the Registrar on 19 January 2022 and served on the respondents' law firm the same day, per an affidavit of service. The respondents raised preliminary objections that the references were incompetent, out of time and improperly served.

Issues

  1. Whether the consolidated references were incompetent and time-barred for failure to apply for a reference within seven days under rule 106(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the references were served on the respondents within time and upon the proper person as required by rules 106(5) and 18 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • The preliminary objections raised by Counsel for the Respondents are overruled.
  • Costs will be in the cause.
  • The hearing of the consolidated References should accordingly proceed.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation References — Rule 106(5) Times the Application for a Reference, Not the Reference Itself
Rule 106(5) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions prescribes only the time within which an application for a reference may be made to the Registrar — informally at the time of taxation or in writing within seven days thereafter — and does not impose a time limit on filing the reference itself, which is governed by rule 106(6).
Civil Procedure — Taxation References — Written Application for Reference — Sufficiency of a Letter to the Registrar
A letter to the Registrar stating the party's dissatisfaction with a taxation ruling and intention to refer it to a single justice constitutes a valid written application for a reference under rule 106(5), as distinct from the reference itself.
Civil Procedure — Service of Documents — Rule 18 — Service on an Advocate's Office Staff
Under rule 18 service may be effected on a respondent's advocate, and service on a partner or clerk at the advocate's office is deemed service on the advocate; an irregularity as to the precise recipient may be treated as a technicality under Article 126(2)(e) where the respondent attended the hearing.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 rule 106(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 rule 106(5)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 rule 106(6)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 rule 110
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 rule 18
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.126(2)(e)

Cases cited (3)

  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Consolidated Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2001)
  • Brenda Nabukenya v Rebecca Nalwanga Balwana (Court of Appeal Taxation Reference No. 208 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gukiina v Tebajanga & 3 Others (Civil Reference 63 of 2021; Civil Reference 64 of 2021) [2022] UGSC 15 (14 February 2022)
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.