Mahjub v Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese (Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2013)

Observed later treatment

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

Held that although the appellant brought the appeal by Notice of Motion instead of Chamber Summons as required under the Advocates (Taxation of Costs) Appeals and Reference Regulations, the procedural irregularity did not deprive the court of jurisdiction and should not bar justice where no prejudice was occasioned. On taxation, the instruction fee was properly calculated according to the 6th Schedule formula, but four specific items not provided for by law were struck off. Ex parte taxation was justified where the appellant and counsel repeatedly failed to appear despite notice.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed with taxation upheld save for four items struck off; costs to respondent

Facts

The appellant had filed suit in the Chief Magistrate Court of Mengo which was dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The respondent filed two bills of costs which were taxed separately, resulting in awards of 5,513,500/= and 9,390,000/= respectively, totalling 14,552,500/=. The appellant contended that when taxation was done, counsel for the applicant was in Soroti Chief Magistrates Court, a fact brought to the attention of the trial magistrate but ignored. The appellant sought retaxation and a stay of execution. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was brought by Notice of Motion under the Civil Procedure Act instead of by Chamber Summons under the Advocates Act s.62(1) and the Advocates (Taxation of Costs) Appeals and Reference Regulations reg.3(1). At taxation, the appellant and counsel had failed to appear on multiple occasions despite notice, leading the magistrate to proceed ex parte.

Issues

1. Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when he awarded costs which are manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when he taxed the bill of costs ex parte.
3. Whether the application was brought under the wrong law and procedure.

Orders

• Appeal partly allowed.
• Items 7, 8, 9 and 56 struck off from the bill of costs for the civil suit.
• Total bill of costs for civil suit reduced from 7,187,500/= to 7,026,500/=.
• Taxation of the miscellaneous application upheld.
• Ex parte taxation proceedings upheld.
• Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 rr.1, 2 & 3
• Advocates Act Cap 267 s.62(1)
• Advocates (Taxation of Costs) Appeals and Reference Regulations reg.3(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules 6th Schedule 1(a)(iv)
• Civil Procedure Rules r.54

Cases cited (2)

• Saggu v Road Motor Cycles (U) Ltd [2002] 1 EA 258
• Bank of Uganda v Bank Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 29 of 1999)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Yoka Rubber Industries v Diamond Trust Properties (Civil Appeal 8 of 2013)

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