Haji Hartjna Mtjlangwa v Shariff Osman [2004] UGSC 26

Observed later treatment

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 a reference from the taxing officer, the Supreme Court held that where there has been a change of advocates, an advocate who comes on record only to lodge a bill of costs cannot claim in that bill costs for work done by the previous advocate. Under paragraph 16 of the 3rd Schedule to the Rules, the former advocate's costs must be drawn on a separate bill and annexed to the current advocate's bill, the total shown as a disbursement. The bill as presented, claiming 1995 instruction fees as the current advocate's own, was fundamentally false and not a mere matter of form curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution. The reference was allowed and the taxing officer's order set aside.

Outcome

Reference allowed; taxing officer's order set aside; respondent to re-file the bill of costs in proper form, with the previous advocate's costs annexed separately

Facts

The applicant, as plaintiff, won a civil suit against the respondent in the High Court. The respondent appealed unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1995, and the applicant's cross-appeal in that appeal also failed; costs were awarded both ways. The advocate who had represented the respondent, Mr. Muwayire-Nakana, died before lodging his bill of costs for the unsuccessful cross-appeal. In December 2003, Musoke & Co. Advocates came on record and lodged a bill of costs in respect of the cross-appeal. In drawing that bill, Musoke & Co. lumped together their own costs and the costs due to the former advocate, including a 1995 claim of Shs 10,000,000 instruction fees to oppose the cross-appeal and 1996 disbursements, all of which were attributable to the erstwhile advocate. The applicant's counsel objected that this contravened paragraph 16 of the 3rd Schedule to the Rules; the taxing officer overruled the objection, treating the defect as a mere matter of form.

Issues

1. Whether an advocate who comes on record only to lodge a bill of costs may include in the same bill costs for services rendered by the previous (erstwhile) advocate.
2. Whether the bill of costs as presented complied with paragraph 16 of the 3rd Schedule to the Rules of the Supreme Court.
3. Whether the taxing officer misdirected himself as to the extent of the applicant's objection to the bill of costs.

Orders

• Application allowed.
• Order of the taxing officer set aside.
• Objections raised before the taxing officer by Mr. Tibaijuka upheld.
• Respondent may lodge his own bill of costs, or his advocate may amend the bill now filed or file two separate bills, namely one for the current advocate and one for the previous advocate (Messrs Muwayire-Nakana) to be annexed to the former.
• Costs of the reference awarded to the applicant in any event.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Rules of the Supreme Court, 3rd Schedule, paragraph 16(1) and (2)
• Rules of the Supreme Court, 3rd Schedule, paragraph 2(1) and (3)
• Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 105(1)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995, Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (3)

• Bhatt v Singh (1962) EA 103
• In re a Solicitor [1943] 1 All E.R. 592
• Polak v Marchioness of Winchester [1956] 1 W.L.R. 818

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Administrator General v Kyomugisha and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 201 of 2022)
• Administrator General v Kyomugisha and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 201 of 2022)

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