Wakilii

Muwawu and Another v Sserwanga (Civil Appeal 22 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 162 · 2025 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of costs arising from dismissal of interlocutory application for want of prosecution
Decision
Appeal partly allowed with substantial reduction in taxed costs from UGX 16,010,000 to approximately UGX 3,700,000

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 the taxation appeal was validly filed despite delay, as the appellants were not properly served with taxation hearing notices and only became aware of the taxation when a warrant of arrest was issued. The court struck out the affidavit in support sworn by counsel without express authority but proceeded to determine the appeal on its merits. The court substantially reduced the costs awarded by the Deputy Registrar, finding that the award of UGX 15,000,000 as advocates' fees was excessive and unsupported where no advocate appeared on record, and that several other items were not adequately proven or were manifestly excessive.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed with substantial reduction in taxed costs from UGX 16,010,000 to approximately UGX 3,700,000

Facts

The appellants instructed Tropical Law Advocates to represent them in Civil Suit No. 206 of 2020 concerning a succession dispute. The advocates filed Miscellaneous Application No. 496 of 2020 seeking security for costs, which was dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent. The respondent filed a Bill of Costs for UGX 16,330,000 and obtained taxation hearing notices. The respondent claimed to have served the notices on the appellants' advocates, but the advocates denied receiving them. The Bill was taxed ex parte on 11 April 2022 and allowed at UGX 16,010,000. The appellants only became aware of the taxation when court bailiffs notified them of a warrant of arrest on 19 September 2022. The appellants then filed this taxation appeal challenging various items in the Bill of Costs, particularly an award of UGX 15,000,000 as advocates' fees when the respondent had represented himself throughout and no advocate appeared on record.

Issues

  1. Whether the costs taxed and allowed by the learned Registrar should be revised or set aside.
  2. Whether the taxation appeal was filed out of time.
  3. Whether the affidavit in support sworn by counsel without express authority from the appellants was valid.

Orders

  • Item 1 of the Bill of Costs reduced from UGX 250,000 to UGX 100,000.
  • Item 2 of the Bill of Costs reduced from UGX 15,000,000 to UGX 3,000,000.
  • Item 5 of the Bill of Costs maintained at UGX 100,000.
  • Item 6 of the Bill of Costs reduced from UGX 200,000 to UGX 100,000.
  • Item 7 of the Bill of Costs reduced from UGX 200,000 to UGX 100,000.
  • Item 8 of the Bill of Costs maintained at UGX 300,000.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Service of Taxation Hearing Notices — Ex Parte Taxation
Where a party claims to have served taxation hearing notices but the evidence of service is insufficient or contradictory, and the opposing party only becomes aware of the taxation through enforcement proceedings, a court may validate a taxation appeal filed outside the normal time limits in the interests of substantive justice.
Affidavits — Authority of Advocate to Swear Affidavit on Behalf of Client
An advocate who swears an affidavit on behalf of a client in contentious matters must expressly state in the affidavit that he or she is authorised by the client to do so within the meaning of Order 3 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. An affidavit sworn by an advocate without such express statement of authority is defective and liable to be struck out.
Taxation of Costs — Principles of Appellate Interference
A court will only interfere with an award of costs by a taxing officer if such costs are so low or so high that they amount to an injustice to one of the parties. Costs must not be allowed to rise to such a level as to confine access to the courts only to the rich, but a successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed for costs he or she has incurred.
Taxation of Costs — Advocates' Fees Where No Advocate on Record
A litigant is not entitled to recover advocates' fees in taxation where no advocate appeared on record and the litigant represented himself throughout the proceedings. Only an advocate who has instructions and has successfully prosecuted a matter can claim costs, and the advocate's involvement must be overt on record. Where a taxing officer awards advocates' fees in the absence of any advocate on record, the award is made with material irregularity and should be set aside.
Taxation of Costs — Proof of Disbursements
A party claiming disbursements in taxation must provide adequate documentary evidence to support the claim. Letters written after the taxation hearing purporting to confirm payments are insufficient proof and may be treated as afterthoughts. Transport costs should be reasonable and reflect available cheaper alternatives rather than the most expensive option.
Taxation of Costs — Reasonable Reimbursement for Dismissed Applications
Where an interlocutory application is dismissed for want of prosecution at an early stage, the successful party is entitled only to reasonable expenses actually incurred, which will typically be minimal. A taxing officer should exercise discretion judiciously and avoid awarding excessive costs disproportionate to the work done and the stage at which the matter was disposed of.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (12)

  • Nabanjala Gorretm Nabukalu Hellen (Taxation Appeal No. 4 of 2018)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1999)
  • Taremwa K. Thomas v Attorney General and 17 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 83 of 2012)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • M/S Simon Tendo Kabenge Advocates v M/S Mineral Access Systems (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 565 of 2011)
  • Mugoya Construction v Central Electricals International Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 699 of 2011)
  • Umeme Limited v Businge Hilda Maate (Taxation Appeal No. 023 of 2022)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Nicholas Roussous v Gulamhussein Habib Virani (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Emmanuel Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11
  • Kamau Eng. International Jansen Ltd and Another v Rushokora Victor (Revision Cause No. 29 of 2020)
  • Commissioner of Lands v Oginga Odinga [1972] EA 125

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muwawu and Another v Sserwanga (Civil Appeal 22 of 2022) 2025 UGHC 162 (8 April 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.