Wakilii

Lubega v Century Bottling Co.Limited (Taxation Appeal No. 17 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 81 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from the Registrar's ruling disallowing certain items in a bill of costs following a successful civil appeal
Decision
Taxation appeal dismissed; taxing officer's ruling 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 dismissed the taxation appeal, holding that an advocate cannot claim costs for work done by a previous advocate before joint instructions were filed unless the previous advocate's bill is separately listed and annexed. The court upheld the taxing officer's decision to disallow items 1 to 26 where the current advocate claimed instruction fees and work done in 2004 before they appeared on record in 2018. The court also upheld the disallowance of disbursement items 86 and 87 where no proof was provided, affirming that special claims require documentary evidence.

Outcome

Taxation appeal dismissed; taxing officer's ruling upheld

Facts

The appellant successfully appealed a civil suit to the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2019, having been represented by Balikuddembe & Co. Advocates. The sole proprietor of that firm, Joseph Balikuddembe, died in November 2017. In October 2019, Wakabala & Co. Advocates filed to have joint instructions with Balikuddembe & Co. Advocates, though Wakabala & Co. did not appear on record until 2018. In September 2020, Wakabala & Co. Advocates drew up and lodged a bill of costs purporting to be jointly with Balikuddembe & Co. Advocates, claiming costs for work done in 2004 and instruction fees for filing the 2019 appeal. The respondent objected that items 1 to 26 related to work done by the previous advocate before Wakabala & Co. appeared on record, and that items 86 and 87 for disbursements lacked proof. The taxing officer upheld the objections and disallowed those items. The appellant appealed to the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer erred in disallowing items 1 to 26 of the bill of costs relating to work done by a previous advocate before joint instructions were filed.
  2. Whether the taxing officer erred in disallowing items 86 and 87 for disbursements where no proof was provided.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Bill of Costs — Advocate on Record
Only the advocate on the record for the time being can lodge or tax a bill of costs. Where advocates have been changed during proceedings, the bill of the first advocate must be annexed to that of the current advocate and its total shown as a disbursement.
Taxation of Costs — Factual Accuracy of Bill
A bill of costs is a factual statement of services rendered and disbursements made. If any of the facts alleged in the bill are shown to be untrue, such as a service not having been rendered or a disbursement not made, the relevant item must be taxed off.
Taxation of Costs — Joint Instructions
Where there are joint instructions, the advocate must explain to the taxing officer what costs are due to them jointly and those due to the previous advocate before joint instructions. Items which should have been claimed by the previous advocate must be listed separately on a separate bill and annexed to the current bill.
Taxation of Costs — Proof of Disbursements
Special claims for disbursements require proof. A taxing officer is justified in disallowing disbursement items where no documentary evidence is provided to support the claim.
Judicial Review of Taxing Officer's Discretion — Grounds for Interference
A judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of costs save in exceptional cases where it is shown that the taxing officer applied a wrong principle, and that the error substantially affected the decision on quantum such that upholding the amount would cause injustice to one of the parties.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (10)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani (SCCA No. 6 of 1995)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (SC Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Electoral Commission & Another v Hon Abdul Katuntu (HCMA No. 001 of 2009)
  • Patrick Makumbi & Another vs. Sole Electronics
  • Bhatt v Singh [1962] EA 103
  • Haji Haruna Mulangwa v Shariff Osman (S.C.C.Ref No. 3 of 2004)
  • In re Taxation of costs: In re A Solicitor [1943] 1 All ER 592
  • Polak v Marchioness of Winchester [1956] 1 WLR 818

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lubega v Century Bottling Co.Limited (Taxation Appeal No. 17 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 81 (9 May 2022)
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.