Wakilii

Mulangwa v Osman (Civil Reference 3 of 2004)

Supreme Court · [2004] UGSC 52 · 2004 Reference Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single judge of the Supreme Court from a ruling of the Registrar as taxing officer on the form of a bill of costs
Decision
Reference allowed; taxing officer's order set aside; objection to the bill of costs upheld with leave to file a bill in proper form

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 7 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

On a reference from the taxing officer, the single judge held that where there has been a change of advocates, the costs of the first advocate must be listed on a separate bill annexed to the current advocate's bill, with their respective entitlements explained; a successor advocate cannot claim costs for work not done by him or her. The bill in dispute falsely purported that the current advocate had been instructed in 1995, which is fundamentally untrue. This was not a mere question of form curable under Article 126(2)(e). The reference was allowed, the taxing officer's order set aside, and the objection upheld, with leave to file a corrected bill.

Outcome

Reference allowed; taxing officer's order set aside; objection to the bill of costs upheld with leave to file a bill in proper form

Facts

The applicant, as plaintiff, won a civil suit against the respondent in the High Court. The respondent's appeal to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1995) failed, as did the applicant's cross-appeal. The respondent's original advocate, Mr. Muwayire-Nakana, who had represented the respondent in the suit and the appeal, died before lodging a bill of costs for the unsuccessful cross-appeal. In December 2003, Musoke & Co. Advocates came on the record solely to draw up and lodge a bill of costs in respect of the cross-appeal. In drawing the bill, they lumped together their own costs and costs that should have been claimed by the deceased advocate, including instruction fees of Shs. 10,000,000 dating from 1995 and disbursements from 1996. The applicant's counsel objected that the bill contravened paragraph 16 of the 3rd Schedule to the Rules of the Court. The taxing officer overruled the objection, prompting this reference.

Issues

  1. Whether an advocate who came on the record only to lodge a bill of costs may include in that bill costs for work done by a previous advocate.
  2. Whether the bill of costs, which lumped together the current advocate's costs and those of the erstwhile advocate, was in proper form under paragraph 16 of the 3rd Schedule to the Rules of the Court.
  3. Whether any defect in the form of the bill was a mere matter of form curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • Application (reference) allowed.
  • Order of the taxing officer set aside.
  • Objections raised before the taxing officer by Mr. Tibaijuka upheld.
  • The respondent may lodge his own bill of costs, or his advocate may amend the bill now filed or file two separate bills — one for the current advocate and one for Messrs Muwayire-Nakana, the latter annexed to the former per paragraph 16(2) of the 3rd Schedule.
  • Costs of the reference to the applicant in any event.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Bill of Costs as a Factual Statement
A bill of costs is a factual statement of services rendered and disbursements made; where any fact alleged in the bill is shown to be untrue — for example, a service charged for that was not rendered — the relevant item must be taxed off.
Costs — Change of Advocates — Form of Bill under Paragraph 16, 3rd Schedule
Where there has been a change of advocates, the costs of the first advocate must be listed separately on a separate bill annexed to the current advocate's bill, with the current advocate explaining which costs are due to him or her and which to the previous advocate; the costs may not be lumped together in a single bill.
Costs — Successor Advocate — No Claim for Work Not Done
An advocate who comes on the record only to lodge a bill of costs cannot claim costs for services he or she never rendered; the rules prevent a successor advocate from reaping where he or she never sowed.
Costs — Defective Bill — Not a Mere Matter of Form under Article 126(2)(e)
A bill of costs that falsely represents that the current advocate did the earlier work and was entitled to instruction fees is fundamentally false and is not a mere question of form curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.105(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.76(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court 3rd Schedule para 2(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court 3rd Schedule para 2(3)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court 3rd Schedule para 16(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court 3rd Schedule para 16(2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Bhatt v Singh (1952) EA 103
  • In re Taxation of Costs; In re a Solicitor [1943] 2 All E.R. 592
  • Polak v Marchioness of Winchester, [1956] 2 H.L.R. 878

Cases citing this judgment (7)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mulangwa v Osman (Civil Reference 3 of 2004) [2004] UGSC 52 (29 August 2004)
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.