Mahathi Infra Uganda Limited & 2 Others v Hadson (Miscellaneous Appeal 43 of 2023)

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.

Holding

The appeal from taxation of costs was dismissed as incompetent because the supporting affidavit was sworn by an advocate who also appeared in personal conduct of the matter, contravening Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations which prohibits an advocate from appearing before court when he will be required to give evidence in a contentious matter.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for procedural defect — supporting affidavit sworn by counsel in personal conduct

Facts

The appellants appealed from a taxation decision in which the Registrar awarded instruction fees of UGX 10,000,000 on a bill of costs arising from an abated civil suit valued at UGX 1,872,165,000. The appellants argued the award was manifestly low and the appropriate fee under the Sixth Schedule should have been UGX 44,663,300. The appellants' advocate, Moses Muziki, swore the affidavit in support and appeared in personal conduct of the appeal. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the affidavit was defective as it contravened professional conduct rules prohibiting an advocate from appearing in matters where he gives evidence. The respondent did not file an affidavit in reply.

Issues

1. Whether the Respondent's failure to file an affidavit in reply put him out of court
2. Whether Taxation Appeal No. 43 of 2023 is incompetent for having been supported by an affidavit sworn by counsel in personal conduct

Orders

• The Respondent's preliminary objection is upheld.
• The Appeal is incompetent for lack of a valid supporting affidavit.
• The Appeal is dismissed.
• Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (13)

• Advocates Act Cap 295 s.62(1)
• Advocates Act Cap 295 s.62(4)
• Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations S.I 267-5 Reg.2
• Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations S.I 267-5 Reg.3
• Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations S.I 267-5 Reg.4
• Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations S.I 267-5 Reg.9
• Judicature Act Cap 16 s.33
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations S.I 267-2 Reg.9
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 6 Rule 28
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 12 Rule 3(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 17 Rule 4
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule Item 1(1)(g)

Cases cited (7)

• Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
• Wanyama Bwadene v KCCA (Civil Application No. 26 of 2021)
• Emmanuel Tamale v Nagalama Coffee Agency (Miscellaneous Application No. 71 of 2013)
• Electro-Maxx Uganda Limited v Oryx Oil Uganda Limited (HCMA No. 251 of 2020)
• Uganda Development Bank v Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates (SCCA No. 35 of 1994)
• MHK Engineering Services v MacDowell Limited (HCMA No. 825 of 2018)
• Bet City (U) Limited and Another v Swangz Avenue (U) Limited (HCMA No. 1177 of 2020)

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