Wakilii

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

High Court · [2025] UGHC 107 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from ruling of Chief Magistrate's Court dismissing preliminary objections to taxation of bill of costs
Decision
Appeal dismissed; taxation of bill of costs in Misc. Application No. 24 of 2021 to proceed with consideration that counsel not entitled to instruction fees for period prior to filing notice of instructions

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 with no order as to costs. The court held that where counsel represented a party without an objection from that party, the absence of a notice of instructions filed on record was a mere technicality that should not deter the party from pursuing their rights, though counsel would not be entitled to instruction fees for actions prior to filing instructions. The court found that the trial magistrate correctly ruled that the issue of costs had been addressed in a prior appeal which maintained the lower court's costs order. Time taken by the lower court to prepare certified proceedings is excluded when computing the period for filing an appeal under Section 79(2) CPA.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; taxation of bill of costs in Misc. Application No. 24 of 2021 to proceed with consideration that counsel not entitled to instruction fees for period prior to filing notice of instructions

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 trial Acting Chief Magistrate on 12 July 2024, who allowed the taxation to proceed. The Appellant filed a notice of appeal on 18 July 2024 and a memorandum of appeal on 26 September 2024, after requesting certified proceedings on 15 July 2024. The lower court certified the record on 10 October 2024. A prior appeal (Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2023) had addressed the issue of costs and maintained the lower court's order awarding costs to the Respondents. Smak Advocates filed the bill of costs, and a notice of instructions from Kaggwa and Partners Co. Advocates was filed on 15 November 2021.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial acting Chief Magistrate erred when he found that there was no error in the Respondents' bill of costs being filed by Smak & Co. Advocates without notice of instructions on record.
  2. Whether the learned trial Acting Chief Magistrate erred when he found that the issue of costs in Misc. Application No.24 of 2021 was addressed by Civil Appeal No.46 of 2023.
  3. Whether the Appellant is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal is overruled with costs.
  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Computation of Limitation Period — Exclusion of Time for Preparing Record
In computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal, the time taken by the lower court in preparing a certified copy of the decree, order, proceedings, and ruling must be excluded under Section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Where an appellant files a memorandum of appeal after the prescribed limitation period but before the lower court certifies the record, and the request for certified proceedings was filed within time, the appeal is filed within the prescribed period and no leave to extend time is required.
Civil Procedure — Legal Representation — Notice of Instructions — Effect of Absence on Record
Where counsel represents a party in court and that party does not object to or challenge the representation, the absence of a notice of instructions filed on record is a mere technicality which should not prevent the party from pursuing their rights. 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 on record, a factor to be considered during taxation of the bill of costs.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation of Costs — Effect of Appellate Judgment on Costs Order
Where an appellate court dismisses a ground of appeal challenging a costs order and expressly finds that the trial court was justified in awarding costs, the appellate court has maintained and affirmed the lower court's costs order. The issue of costs is thereby addressed and resolved on appeal, and the party in whose favour costs were awarded is entitled to proceed with taxation of the bill of costs.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.282 s.79(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.282 s.79(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.1(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.1(2)
  • Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations Regulation 2

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 107 (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.