Wakilii

J. B. Byamugisha Advocates v Insurance Regulatory Authority of Uganda (Taxation Appeal 11 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 127 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from dismissal of taxation application by taxing officer for non-attendance
Decision
Appeal dismissed; taxing officer's dismissal order upheld

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 High Court held that a taxing officer has authority under Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss a taxation application for want of prosecution where a party fails to attend without explanation. Regulation 54 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations empowers but does not mandate the taxing officer to proceed ex parte, and does not oust the officer's dismissal powers. An appeal under Section 68 of the Advocates Act is not the proper remedy for challenging such a dismissal; the correct procedure is an application for reinstatement under Order 9 Rule 27.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; taxing officer's dismissal order upheld

Facts

The appellant law firm sought taxation of an advocate-client bill of costs pursuant to a High Court order. The taxing officer scheduled a hearing for 29 August 2025 and served notice via ECCMIS on 14 August 2025. Counsel for the appellant failed to attend the hearing without explanation. The taxing officer dismissed Taxation Application No. 97 of 2025 for want of prosecution under Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The appellant then filed this appeal under Section 68 of the Advocates Act, contending that the taxing officer acted illegally and should instead have proceeded ex parte under Regulation 54 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations. The respondent opposed, arguing that the appellant was duly notified, failed to attend, and adopted the wrong procedure for challenging the dismissal.

Issues

  1. Whether Regulation 52 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI 123 of 1982 bars the taxing officer from dismissing a bill of costs for want of prosecution.
  2. What remedies are available to the appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Powers of Taxing Officer
A taxing officer has authority under Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss a taxation application for want of prosecution where a party fails to attend the hearing without explanation, notwithstanding Regulation 54 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations which empowers the officer to proceed ex parte.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Regulation 54 — Discretionary Power to Proceed Ex Parte
Regulation 54 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations empowers but does not mandate a taxing officer to proceed ex parte in default of appearance; it confers a discretion and does not oust the officer's authority to dismiss for want of prosecution under Order 9 Rule 22.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Section 68 of the Advocates Act — Scope of Application
Section 68 of the Advocates Act provides for appeals or references from a taxing officer's decision on the quantum or allowability of costs, but does not apply to procedural dismissals for want of prosecution; such dismissals are properly challenged by application for reinstatement under Order 9 Rule 27, not by appeal under Section 68.
Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Proper Remedy — Order 9 Rule 27
Where a taxation application has been dismissed for non-attendance under Order 9 Rule 22, the proper remedy is an application for reinstatement for sufficient cause under Order 9 Rule 27, not an appeal under Section 68 of the Advocates Act.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kwesiga James v Mugisha Robert (Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

J. B. Byamugisha Advocates v Insurance Regulatory Authority of Uganda (Taxation Appeal 11 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 127 (21 April 2026)
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.