Wakilii

Kamau Eng. International Jansen Ltd and Another v Rushokora (Revision Cause 29 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 150 · 2024 Revision Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Revision application from taxation of costs order by Mengo Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Taxation award set aside; respondent entitled only to allowable disbursements at the taxing master's discretion

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

A self-represented litigant cannot draft and present a bill of costs in accordance with the Advocates Act and its Regulations. Only an advocate on record who rendered legal services may file a bill of costs. The trial magistrate exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity by taxing a bill of costs filed by the respondent in person rather than by his instructed advocates. The taxation award was set aside in totality.

Outcome

Taxation award set aside; respondent entitled only to allowable disbursements at the taxing master's discretion

Facts

The applicants were ordered to pay taxed costs following judgment in Civil Suit No. 577 of 2015 in which the respondent was awarded UGX 3,600,000 for breach of contract. The respondent prepared and filed his own bill of costs totaling UGX 51,694,000. On 9th September 2022, the Mengo Chief Magistrate's Court taxed the bill ex parte and allowed UGX 23,690,200. The bill was drawn in accordance with the 6th Schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Amendment Regulations, 2018, signed by the respondent personally. The respondent had earlier been represented by two law firms—Rwakafuzi & Co. Advocates and Mugisa Namutale & Co Advocates—before proceeding in person. The applicants deposited UGX 2,000,000 on advice of the trial magistrate and sought revision of the taxation order.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a proper application for revision?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The taxation award dated 9th September 2022 vide Mengo Chief Magistrates Court EMA No. 0288 of 2022 is revised and set aside in totality.
  • The respondent is only entitled to allowable disbursements granted at the discretion of the taxing master.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Standing to File Bill of Costs — Self-Represented Litigant
A self-represented litigant cannot draft and file a bill of costs under the Advocates Act and Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations. Only an advocate on the roll who holds instructions and has rendered legal services may file a bill of costs claiming professional remuneration.
Costs — Party and Party Costs — Entitlement of Successful Litigant
A successful party awarded costs is not entitled to profit from litigation. The party may recover court fees, reasonable expenses paid to witnesses, and reasonable fees paid to advocates, but must pass on any amount over and above disbursements to the advocate. Professional remuneration for legal work belongs to the advocate, not the client.
Costs — Bill of Costs — Authority to File
Where a litigant has instructed legal counsel at any stage, only the advocate who holds instructions and has successfully prosecuted the matter may file a bill of costs. The advocate's involvement must be overt on the court record, and where there has been a change of advocates, notice to that effect must be filed. An advocate who did no legal work in a matter cannot file a bill for work not done.
Revision — Grounds — Exercise of Jurisdiction with Material Irregularity
A court exercises jurisdiction with material irregularity where it taxes a bill of costs filed by a self-represented litigant in the form prescribed for advocates under the Advocates Act, rather than limiting the litigant to allowable disbursements.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (4)

  • Lumweno & Co Advocates v TransAfrica Assurance Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2004)
  • Attorney General v Ndungu Theuri [1985] KLR 157; [1987] 1 KAR 9-33; [1986-1989] EA 2
  • Commissioner for Lands v Oginga Odinga [1972] EA 125
  • Mutebi David Ronnie v Dr. Bayigga Micheal Phillip Lulume (Miscellaneous Application No. 08 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kamau Eng. International Jansen Ltd and Another v Rushokora (Revision Cause 29 of 2020) [2024] UGHCCD 150 (12 September 2024)
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.