Wakilii

Lukwago v Talenga T a Mashall Agents and Court Bailliffs (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 64 of 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHCEBD 10 · 2020 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a taxation ruling under Section 82 and 98 CPA and Order 46 and 51 CPR
Decision
Taxation ruling and certificate set aside; bailiff ordered to refund UGX 7,000,000 with interest; bailiff's license cancelled and referred to Police; applicant awarded costs

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 review application was the proper remedy for challenging a taxation ruling that awarded UGX 36,772,000 in bailiff fees for execution of a UGX 10,000,000 decree, where the error was apparent on the face of the record. The court found that the bailiff's bill contravened the Judicature (Court Bailiffs) Rules, which limit fees for warrants over UGX 30,000,000 to 5% (maximum UGX 450,000), and for the UGX 10,000,000 decree should have been 1% (UGX 100,000). The taxation was set aside as illegal, irregular, and based on misrepresentations.

Outcome

Taxation ruling and certificate set aside; bailiff ordered to refund UGX 7,000,000 with interest; bailiff's license cancelled and referred to Police; applicant awarded costs

Facts

The applicant was sued in 2017 and a consent decree was entered on 26 April 2018 requiring him to pay UGX 10,000,000 to the judgment creditor. On 5 September 2018, he voluntarily deposited the decreed sum and a duplicate certificate of title at court. The respondent bailiff, who had been issued a warrant of arrest for execution of the decree for UGX 10,000,000 only, then filed a bill of costs claiming UGX 62,347,000 based on an alleged recovery of property valued at UGX 570,000,000. The bill was taxed and allowed at UGX 36,772,000 on 21 November 2018. Before taxation, the bailiff coerced the applicant into an agreement to pay UGX 45,000,000 as execution costs and received UGX 7,000,000. The applicant was never arrested by the bailiff and voluntarily paid the decreed sum. The bailiff claimed to have hired five police officers and incurred expenses that never occurred.

Issues

  1. Whether the application before court is competent?
  2. Whether or not the grounds of review have been proved?
  3. What reliefs are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The ruling and certificate of taxation dated 21 November 2018 vide HCT EMA No. 989 of 2018 arising from Civil Suit No. 703 of 2017 is reviewed and set aside.
  • A declaration that the bill of costs filed by the Respondent as taxed is illegal due to the fact that it was based on misrepresentations.
  • The Respondent is directed to refund Uganda Shillings 7,000,000 (seven million) which he illegally received from the Applicant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of ruling till payment in full.
  • Declared that the amount of Uganda shillings 36,772,000 taxed as bailiffs' costs is unfair, unreasonable, un-proportionate, grossly exaggerated and highly irregular.
  • The Respondent is referred to the Police for acting in contravention of Rule 20 of the Judicature (Court Bailiffs) Rules.
  • His license as a Court Bailiff if at all he is in possession of any is hereby cancelled and he should not be allowed to practice as a bailiff for 10 years.
  • The Applicant is awarded costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Jurisdiction — Orders of the Registrar
The High Court has power under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules to review decisions of the Registrar where an error is apparent on the face of the record, by virtue of its unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record — Definition
An error apparent on the face of the record is one where an error on a substantial point of law stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions; it is a clear case that must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument to establish; a mere erroneous decision or wrong view is not ground for review although it may be for appeal.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Bailiff's Fees — Calculation
Court bailiff fees are taxed according to the amount reflected in the decree, not on any imagined or asserted value of property, and must be calculated strictly in accordance with the scale of fees in the Second Schedule to the Judicature (Court Bailiffs) Rules; for a decree over UGX 30,000,000, the fee is 5% but not more than UGX 450,000, and for a decree of UGX 10,000,000, the fee is 1% of the decretal sum.
Civil Procedure — Execution of Decrees — Bailiff's Conduct — Illegal Agreement
A court bailiff cannot enter into any agreement with a judgment debtor regarding execution costs without the knowledge and approval of the court; any such agreement is illegal and unenforceable, and the bailiff acts in abuse of his powers in contravention of Rule 20 of the Judicature (Court Bailiffs) Rules.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Bailiff's Bill — Allowable Expenses
The expenses of a bailiff in respect of advertising, inventories, catalogues, insurance, safeguarding properties, wages of watch person, and rent of premises for storage are payable out of the fees payable to the bailiff and shall not be charged additionally, except for specific items allowed with court permission under Rule 19 of the Judicature (Court Bailiffs) Rules; the bailiff cannot claim for drawing the application for execution or the warrant of arrest.
Civil Procedure — Execution of Decrees — Procedure — Judicial Officer's Role
Where the decretal sum is recovered during execution, the judicial officer is expected to determine execution expenses there and then; if the amount cannot be determined instantly, the court bailiff presents a bill of costs which must be taxed in accordance with the rules; any consent between judgment debtor and court bailiff regarding execution fees should be executed before the judicial officer and endorsed to avoid abuse of court process.
Civil Procedure — Bailiff's Conduct — Sanctions — Cancellation of License
Where a court bailiff abuses his powers by entering into an illegal contract and demanding excessive execution costs in contravention of the Judicature (Court Bailiffs) Rules, the court may cancel the bailiff's license, refer the bailiff to the Police for prosecution under Rule 20, and order refund of money illegally extracted with interest.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (3)

  • Attorney General v Kamoga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Nyamogo and Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173
  • Dawaru v Angumale (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0096 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lukwago v Talenga T a Mashall Agents and Court Bailliffs (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 64 of 2019) [2020] UGHCEBD 10 (26 August 2020)
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.