Wakilii

Male Mukasa John Baptist v Jobbingfield Properties Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1882 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 61 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application seeking review of registrar's orders awarding costs and taxation ruling
Decision
Application dismissed for incompetence

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 held that an application seeking review of a registrar's decision on costs and a taxation ruling is incompetent and misconceived. The proper remedy against decisions of a taxing officer or registrar is by way of appeal under section 68(1) of the Advocates Act and Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not by review. The application was dismissed as an abuse of process for having been brought under the wrong procedure.

Outcome

Application dismissed for incompetence

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 0158 of 2023 and related miscellaneous applications against the respondents, then withdrew the suit on 23 March 2023. On 3 May 2023, the Assistant Registrar allowed the withdrawal without costs but awarded costs to the 1st respondent in Miscellaneous Application No. 416 of 2023. On 4 September 2023, the Acting Deputy Registrar awarded costs to the respondents in the main suit and Miscellaneous Application No. 0396 of 2023. The 1st respondent filed a bill of costs which was taxed in the applicant's absence. The applicant then brought this application seeking to review and set aside the registrar's orders on costs and the taxation ruling, arguing that the Acting Deputy Registrar was functus officio when she awarded costs on 4 September 2023, as costs had already been determined on 3 May 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for review of a registrar's decision on costs and taxation is competent in law.
  2. Whether the proper remedy against a registrar's decision is by way of appeal rather than review.

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 — Remedies Against Registrar's Decisions — Appeal vs Review — Proper Procedure
The proper remedy against a decision of a taxing officer or registrar is by way of appeal under section 68(1) of the Advocates Act and Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not by way of review.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Competence of Proceedings — Wrong Procedure
An application brought under the wrong procedure is incompetent and constitutes an abuse of process, and the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Nakabuye v Kalule and Another (HCMA No. 41 of 2020)
  • Khainza and 4 Others v Mweru (HCMA No. 437 of 2023)
  • Khainza Milly and 4 Others v Mweru Mike Henry (HCMA No. 0437 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_(Miscellaneous_Application_1882_of_2025)_[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.