Wakilii

Kubarika Moses and Others v Sebei Elgon Cooperative Union Limited (Taxation Appeal No. 82 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 470 · 2026 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from the Deputy Registrar's taxation of costs arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 9 of 2022
Decision
Taxation set aside and matter remitted for fresh taxation hearing inter parties

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 taxed bill of costs is irregular where the taxing master proceeds without conducting the mandatory pre-taxation meeting required by Regulation 13A of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation) Regulations, and without proof that the party was duly served with hearing notices. The court set aside the taxation and ordered a fresh hearing inter parties.

Outcome

Taxation set aside and matter remitted for fresh taxation hearing inter parties

Facts

The Appellants were applicants in Miscellaneous Cause No. 9 of 2022, which they withdrew. The Respondent was awarded costs of the withdrawal. The Respondent's advocates filed a bill of costs which was taxed by the Assistant Registrar and allowed at UGX 10,223,200. The Appellants challenged the taxation on multiple grounds, including that no mandatory pre-taxation meeting was held, that they were not served with hearing notices, and that various items in the bill were excessive or improperly allowed. The Respondent opposed the appeal, claiming that multiple adjournments were granted for pre-taxation but the Appellants failed to appear, leading to ex parte taxation.

Issues

  1. Whether it is proper for the taxing master to tax the bill of costs without conducting the pre-taxation meeting?
  2. Whether the bill of costs was properly taxed?
  3. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The bill of costs arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 9 of 2022 is set aside.
  • The taxation hearing in Miscellaneous Cause No. 9 of 2022 shall be conducted afresh inter parties in accordance with the provisions of the law.
  • Costs are awarded to the Appellants/Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Pre-Taxation Meeting — Mandatory Requirement
Regulation 13A of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation) Regulations is couched in mandatory terms and requires advocates for the respective parties or the parties themselves to jointly identify costs, fees, and expenses on which they agree before taxation of a bill of costs. Failure to conduct a pre-taxation meeting is an irregularity which warrants setting aside the taxed bill of costs.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Service of Hearing Notices — Proof Required
Where a taxing officer proceeds ex parte under Regulation 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation) Regulations, proof must be led that the party was served with hearing notices for the pre-taxation meeting. In the absence of such proof, the taxation is irregular.
Civil Procedure — Taxation Appeals — Procedure — Chamber Summons
An appeal from a taxation decision of the Deputy Registrar under section 62(1) of the Advocates Act must be brought by way of summons in chambers supported by affidavit, as provided by Regulation 3(1) of the Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations SI.267-5, not by motion on notice.
Administrative Law — Professional Conduct — Advocate as Witness — Regulation 9
Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations does not bar an advocate from deposing to an affidavit in support of an application in a contentious matter, provided the advocate does not appear in personal conduct of the matter. Where an advocate holds brief for another counsel and depones an affidavit in reply, there is no contravention of the regulation if the advocate is not in personal conduct of the matter.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Source of Information — Order 19 Rule 3(1)
Where a deponent states in an affidavit that they are well versed with the facts of the case and depone by virtue of office, and further avers that the contents are true and correct to the best of their own knowledge, the deponent is not required to disclose a source of information under Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the averments indicate personal knowledge of the facts.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (5)

  • Pallisa Town Council v Olupot Simon and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2023)
  • Amatos Mwebeiha v Alex Bashasha t/a Bashasha Co. Advocates (2025 UGHCLD 160)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates (SCCA No. 35 of 1994)
  • Lakony Janan v Gulu District Service Commission (HCCA No. 110 of 2018)
  • Omakeny Silver v Osekeny Alex Mischael (Taxation Appeal No. 4 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kubarika Moses and Others v Sebei Elgon Cooperative Union Limited (Taxation Appeal No. 82 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 470 (11 May 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.