Wakilii

Masiko v Magara and 4 Others (Civil Appeal 39 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 87 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a ruling of the Chief Magistrate's Court of Hoima dismissing preliminary objections raised during taxation of a bill of costs
Decision
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. The ruling of the Chief Magistrate's Court allowing taxation of the bill of costs to proceed is upheld.

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 dismissed the appeal against a ruling that allowed taxation of a bill of costs to proceed. The Court held that the memorandum of appeal was filed within time when the period the lower court took to prepare the record was excluded under s.79(2) CPA. The Court found that the absence of a notice of instructions on file at the time of filing the bill of costs was a technicality that should not bar the Respondents' rights, though it affected entitlement to instruction fees. The Court affirmed that the issue of costs had been properly addressed in the earlier Civil Appeal No.46 of 2023.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. The ruling of the Chief Magistrate's Court allowing taxation of the bill of costs to proceed is upheld.

Facts

The Respondents filed a bill of costs in Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2021 arising from Civil Suit No. 35 of 2012. During taxation, the Appellant raised preliminary objections which were dismissed by the Acting Chief Magistrate on 12 July 2024, allowing the taxation to proceed. The Appellant appealed this ruling. The Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was filed out of time. The Appellant had filed a notice of appeal on 18 July 2024 and a memorandum of appeal on 26 September 2024, having requested certified proceedings on 18 July 2024. The certified record was produced on 10 October 2024. The bill of costs was filed by Smak Advocates, and the Appellant argued there was no notice of instructions on record at the material time. A notice of instructions dated 15 November 2021 was later filed showing instructions from Kaggwa and Partners Co. Advocates. An earlier Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2023 had addressed and dismissed the issue of costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was filed within time or whether leave for extension of time was required.
  2. Whether there was an error in the Respondents' bill of costs being filed by Smak & Co. Advocates without a notice of instructions on record at the material time.
  3. Whether the learned trial Acting Chief Magistrate erred in finding that the issue of costs in Misc. Application No.24 of 2021 was addressed by Civil Appeal No.46 of 2023.
  4. Whether the Appellant is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection to competence of the appeal overruled with costs.
  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order as to costs of the appeal since the appeal was against a bill of taxation filed by counsel without instructions at the time.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time for Filing — Exclusion of Time Taken by Court to Prepare Record
In computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal under s.79(1) CPA, the time taken by the court in making a copy of the decree or order appealed against and of the proceedings upon which it is founded must be excluded under s.79(2) CPA. Where an appellant files a memorandum of appeal before the record is certified and has requested the record within the appeal period, the appeal is filed within time.
Civil Procedure — Legal Representation — Notice of Instructions — Effect of Absence on Substantive Rights
The failure of counsel to file a notice of instructions on record at the time of filing court documents is a mere technicality which should not deter a party from pursuing their rights where the party does not object to the representation. However, counsel is not entitled to instruction fees or costs for actions taken during the period prior to the filing of the notice of instructions, a factor to be considered during taxation.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Effect of Appellate Affirmation of Costs Order
Where an appellate court addresses and dismisses an appeal ground challenging a lower court's award of costs, thereby maintaining the costs order, the successful party is entitled to proceed with taxation of the bill of costs. The appellate court's affirmation of the costs order preserves the status quo established by the lower court.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. [1968] EA 123
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Masiko v Magara and 4 Others (Civil Appeal 39 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 87 (31 January 2025)
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.