Wakilii

Kakwezi Geoffrey v Mwebaza Edward (Civil Appeal 24 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1354 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of costs in the Chief Magistrates Court at Katwe-Kabatooro
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent

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 dismissed an appeal against taxation of costs, holding that service was effective where the appellant received notice through multiple means and acknowledged awareness of the taxation hearing in a complaint letter to court. The court found no basis to interfere with the taxing master's award of UGX 780,000, as the appellant failed to demonstrate that the amount was manifestly excessive or that any wrong principle was applied in the taxation.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The Respondent successfully sued the Appellant in Civil Suit No. 004 of 2022 for recovery of money. The Appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed with costs on 14 October 2023. The Respondent then filed a bill of costs which was served on the Appellant via WhatsApp through a court clerk. The Appellant complained about the mode of service, claiming the WhatsApp number was not in his name. The court directed fresh service, which was effected at the Appellant's home on his daughter by a process server on 21 August 2024. Despite being aware of the taxation hearing, the Appellant did not attend and the bill was taxed ex parte at UGX 780,000. The Appellant then appealed, arguing he was not effectively served and that the bill was overtaxed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Appellant was effectively served with Notice of Hearing in the taxation matter.
  2. Whether the taxed bill of costs in Civil Suit No. KASS 4 of 2022 should be dismissed for being manifestly excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.
  • Right of appeal explained.

Rules and key headnotes

Service of Process — Effective Service — Awareness of Proceedings
The intended result of serving court documents is to make the recipient aware of the proceedings so that they have the opportunity to respond. Where a party demonstrates awareness of proceedings through correspondence with the court, service has achieved its intended effect regardless of technical irregularities in the mode of service.
Service of Process — Substituted Service — Adult Family Member
Under Order 5 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules, when a defendant cannot be found, service may be made on an adult member of the family residing with the defendant. Service on the appellant's daughter at his home constitutes valid service.
Taxation of Costs — Appellate Intervention — Standard of Review
A judge will not interfere with the assessment of the taxing officer merely because a different amount might have been allowed. Intervention is warranted only in exceptional cases where the taxing officer applied a wrong principle, which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low, and only where the error substantially affected the decision and would cause injustice.
Taxation of Costs — Burden on Appellant — Specificity Required
An appellant challenging a taxed bill of costs must identify specific items or principles on which the taxing master erred. A general assertion that the bill is excessive, without detailed analysis of particular items, provides no basis for appellate intervention.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1999)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11
  • Geoffrey Gatete & Another v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kakwezi Geoffrey v Mwebaza Edward (Civil Appeal 24 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1354 (10 December 2025)
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.