Wakilii

Hatangimbabazi and Another v Bagoroza and Another (Taxation Reference 1 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 118 · 2023 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation reference appealing a taxing master's decision on costs arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 63 of 2022 and Miscellaneous Cause No. 65 of 2022
Decision
Taxation awards set aside and matters remitted to taxing master for fresh taxation

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 Regulation 42 of the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations prohibits an advocate representing two or more parties from filing more than one bill of costs unless separate proceedings were taken and found necessary. The taxing master erred in taxing two separate bills of costs for the appellants who were jointly represented in the same suit. Awards in both miscellaneous causes set aside and matters referred back for proper taxation.

Outcome

Taxation awards set aside and matters remitted to taxing master for fresh taxation

Facts

The appellants instructed the respondent advocate through separate powers of attorney to handle legal matters related to their respective vehicles and pursue compensation against the Attorney General. The respondent prosecuted Civil Suit No. 719 of 1997 and obtained a consent judgment with costs. The respondent subsequently prepared and filed two separate bills of costs, one for each appellant. The taxing master taxed the separate bills and awarded UGX 27,673,000 to the first appellant and UGX 40,470,000 to the second appellant. The appellants challenged these awards, arguing that the respondent represented them jointly in the same suit and should not have filed separate bills of costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxation reference was filed in time or was incompetent for being filed out of time.
  2. Whether the first and second appellants are parties chargeable individually and separately for costs.
  3. Whether the taxing master erred in taxing two separate bills of costs for appellants jointly represented by the same advocate in the same suit.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection was overtaken by events and dismissed.
  • The awards of the bills of costs in Miscellaneous Cause No. 63 of 2022 and Miscellaneous Cause No. 65 of 2022 are set aside.
  • The matters are referred back to the taxing master for taxation in accordance with Regulation 42 of the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Multiple Parties Represented by Same Advocate — Single Bill of Costs Required
Under Regulation 42 of the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations, where the same advocate is employed by two or more parties, the advocate may not file more than one bill of costs unless separate proceedings were taken and such proceedings are found necessary and proper by the taxing officer.
Taxation of Costs — Statutory Interpretation — Plain Meaning Rule
Where statutory words are plain and unambiguous, the court must give the words of the statute their natural and ordinary meaning. The use of the word 'and' in a statutory provision generally has a cumulative sense requiring that all conditions be met.
Taxation of Costs — Separate Proceedings Requirement
Regulation 42 of the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations applies only where separate proceedings have been taken out by two or more parties represented by the same advocate. The regulation excludes the reverse situation where parties are jointly represented in the same proceedings.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1999)
  • Nicholas Roussoss v Gullam Hussein (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
  • Attorney General v Blanket Manufacturers (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Bank of Uganda v Sudhir Ruparelia and Meera Investments Ltd (Supreme Court Taxation Reference No. 1 of 2023)
  • Abley v Dale, 20 L.J.C.P (N.S) 233 [1851]
  • Duport Steel vs Sirs, QBD 1980
  • Ishwar Singh Bindra v State of U.P, AIR 1968 SC 1450, 1454

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hatangimbabazi and Another v Bagoroza and Another (Taxation Reference 1 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 118 (7 November 2023)
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.