Wakilii

Male Mukasa John Baptist v Jobbingfield Properties Limited and Another [2026] UGHCLD 61

High Court · 2026 Preliminary Objection Upheld — Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to review, recall and set aside rulings and taxation orders of registrars, determined on a preliminary objection
Decision
Application dismissed as incompetent; applicant left to pursue appeal as the proper remedy

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 court upheld a preliminary objection that the application was misconceived. A person aggrieved by an order or decision of a taxing officer must appeal to a judge of the High Court within thirty days under section 68(1) of the Advocates Act, and a decision of a registrar is challengeable by appeal under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not by review. A complaint that the registrar was functus officio when awarding costs goes to the merits of her decision and must likewise be raised on appeal. Having invoked the wrong procedure, the applicant left the court without jurisdiction, rendering the application an abuse of process. The application was dismissed as incompetent with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed as incompetent; applicant left to pursue appeal as the proper remedy

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 0158 of 2023 in the Land Division together with two miscellaneous applications against the respondents. After the first respondent filed a written statement of defence, the applicant filed a notice of withdrawal of the suit and the applications. On 3rd May 2023 an assistant registrar allowed the withdrawal without costs in the main suit but awarded costs to the first respondent in Miscellaneous Application No. 416 of 2023. On 4th September 2023, an acting deputy registrar awarded the respondents costs in the main suit and the related applications. A bill of costs was filed and taxed in Taxation Application No. 821 of 2023, which the applicant said proceeded without service on him or his participation. Following execution proceedings, the applicant applied to have the rulings of 4th September 2023 and the taxation ruling recalled, reviewed and set aside, contending that the acting deputy registrar was functus officio, that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and that new evidence had been discovered. The first respondent objected that review was not the available remedy.

Issues

  1. Whether a decision of a taxing officer or registrar on costs and taxation may be challenged by way of an application for review before a judge of the High Court.
  2. Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the application to recall, review and set aside the rulings and taxation orders of the registrars.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The application is dismissed for being incompetent, having been brought under the wrong procedure.
  • No order as to costs is made.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Challenge to Decision of Taxing Officer — Appeal under Advocates Act s.68(1)
A person affected by an order or decision of a taxing officer may only challenge that decision by appeal to a judge of the High Court within thirty days under section 68(1) of the Advocates Act; an application for review is not the proper recourse.
Civil Procedure — Decisions of Registrars — Proper Recourse is Appeal under Order 50 rule 8
The proper recourse against a decision of a registrar is by appeal under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the High Court has no jurisdiction to review such a decision.
Civil Procedure — Functus Officio — Complaint Goes to Merits and Must Be Raised on Appeal
A contention that a registrar was functus officio when making an award of costs relates to the merits of that decision and must be raised on appeal rather than by way of review.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Abuse of Process — Wrong Procedure Renders Application Incompetent
Where a court lacks jurisdiction it must not proceed to hear the matter, and an application brought under the wrong procedure is incompetent and an abuse of process warranting dismissal without consideration of its merits.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • Nakabuye v Kalule and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 2020)
  • Khainza Milly and 4 Others v Mweru Mike Henry (Miscellaneous Application No. 437 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Male Mukasa John Baptist v Jobbingfield Properties Limited and Another [2026] UGHCLD 61 (26 March 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.