Gukiina v Tebajanga (consolidated civil reference application 63 of 2021; consolidated civil reference application 64 of 2021)

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.

Holding

On preliminary objection, a single Justice held that rule 106(5) of the Supreme Court Rules prescribes the time within which an application for a reference on taxation must be made to the registrar — orally at the taxation or in writing within seven days — and not a timeline for the reference itself. The applicant's two letters to the registrar, received five days after the taxation ruling, were valid applications for a reference and complied with rule 106(5). The objection on service failed because the documents were sealed and served on the same day, and service on staff at the advocate's office is service on the advocate under rule 18. Both objections were overruled.

Outcome

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

Facts

The applicant filed two references challenging a taxation ruling delivered by the Taxing Master of the Supreme Court on 26 November 2021, which covered two bills of costs filed by the respondents. The first bill related to the applicant's notice of appeal that had been struck off for failure to prosecute, and the second to the dismissal of the applicant's application for leave to file her appeal out of time. The references arose from Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2008. On 1 December 2021, five days after the ruling, the applicant's advocates wrote two letters to the registrar stating dissatisfaction with the taxation ruling, indicating an intention to refer the matter to a single Justice and requesting certified copies of the ruling and record. The references and hearing notices were signed and sealed on 19 January 2021 and served on the respondents' law firm the same day. At the hearing of the consolidated references the respondents raised preliminary objections challenging competence and service.

Issues

1. Whether the consolidated references were incompetent for failure to make an informal application or file a written application for a reference to a single judge within seven days under rule 106(5) of the Supreme Court Rules.
2. Whether the references were served on the respondents out of time and upon the proper person as required by rules 106(5) and 18 of the Supreme Court Rules.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• 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
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 rule 18(2)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 rule 18(3)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (3)

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

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