Wakilii

Karmali & 2 Ors v Ruperelia (HCT-00-CC-MA 121 of 2012)

High Court · [2013] UGCOMMC 82 · 2013 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to quash decree and warrant of arrest arising from taxation of costs
Decision
Decree and execution set aside; costs awarded to respondent in the head suit; respondent free to restart taxation process

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 a Registrar cannot tax costs that have not been awarded by the Court. Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs shall follow the event unless the court orders otherwise. The omission to award costs in the judgment was a slip which the respondent should have rectified under Section 99 before proceeding to taxation. The decree and execution were accordingly quashed. However, the Court exercised its power under the slip rule to correct the omission by awarding costs to the respondent as the successful party. Registrars are empowered under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules to handle formal orders for attachment and sale of property and to issue notices to show cause regarding applications for arrest and imprisonment in execution of a decree.

Outcome

Decree and execution set aside; costs awarded to respondent in the head suit; respondent free to restart taxation process

Facts

On 6 September 2010 the parties entered into a partial consent judgment. On 19 January 2012 the Court delivered judgment on outstanding issues awarding general damages and interest but did not expressly award costs. The respondent filed a bill of costs for taxation. On 9 February 2012 the taxation hearing proceeded ex parte after the Registrar declined to grant an adjournment requested by counsel for the applicant who was unwell. The Registrar taxed costs at UGX 45,007,500 plus VAT of UGX 8,101,135. On 13 February 2012 a decree was extracted including the costs and an application for execution was filed, followed by the issue of a warrant of arrest against the first applicant. The applicants then filed this application to quash the decree and warrant of arrest on grounds that the Registrar exceeded her jurisdiction by taxing costs not awarded by the Court, by conducting taxation ex parte without sufficient cause, and by issuing the warrant of arrest.

Issues

  1. Whether the Registrar exceeded her jurisdiction in taxing costs that had not been awarded by the Court.
  2. Whether the decree dated 13 February 2012 was defective for including costs not awarded in the judgment.
  3. Whether the Registrar erred in conducting taxation of the bill of costs ex parte.
  4. Whether the Registrar had power to issue a warrant of arrest under Order 22 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Decree dated 13 February 2012 quashed insofar as it provided for costs of the suit when costs had not been awarded.
  • Execution under the decree dated 13 February 2012 set aside.
  • Court corrects the slip by awarding costs to the respondent as the successful party in the head suit.
  • Respondent free to restart the process of taxation with a proper decree and proceed to execute if the applicant does not satisfy the decree.
  • Costs of this application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Award of costs — Section 27 Civil Procedure Act — Costs follow the event unless court orders otherwise
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs shall follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders. Costs are in the discretion of the judge and the general rule is that costs follow the event. Where the court decides not to award costs, it must give reasons. The failure to award costs to a successful party is an exception that requires justification.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of costs — Registrar's jurisdiction — Taxation without prior award by Court
A Registrar has no jurisdiction to tax costs that have not been awarded by the Court. It is improper for a Registrar to tax costs in favour of a party when costs have not been awarded in the judgment. The proper procedure where costs have been omitted from a judgment is for the party to apply under the slip rule in Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act before proceeding to taxation.
Civil Procedure — Slip rule — Section 99 Civil Procedure Act — Correction of accidental omissions
Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to correct clerical or mathematical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, either on its own motion or on the application of any party. Where costs have been omitted from a judgment through an accidental slip, the court may correct the omission under Section 99.
Civil Procedure — Powers of Registrars — Execution of decrees — Order 50 Civil Procedure Rules
Registrars of the High Court are empowered under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules to handle all formal orders for the attachment and sale of property and for the issue of notices to show cause on applications for arrest and imprisonment in execution of a decree.

Legislation cited (22)

Cases cited (5)

  • Jim Muhwezi v Attorney General and Another (Misc. Application No. 18 of 2007)
  • Tatiana Malachi V Cape Dance Academy International (Pty) Ltd [2010] ZACC 13
  • Paul Mwiru v Hon Igeme and 2 Others (Election Appeal No. 6 of 2011)
  • Kamugisha v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCCS No. 311 of 2011)
  • Akol International V Kasirye Byaruhanga and Co Advocates [1995] III KALR 91

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Karmali & 2 Ors v Ruperelia (HCT-00-CC-MA 121 of 2012) [2013] UGCommC 82 (7 May 2013)
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.