Wakilii

Namakula v Lukwebe (Miscellaneous Application 1024 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCFD 47 · 2024 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review and set aside a consent certificate of taxation
Decision
Matter remitted to taxing master for determination of whether consent certificate complies with statutory fee scale

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 partially granted an application to review a consent certificate of taxation for bailiff's fees. While the court rejected grounds of fraud, mistake, and misrepresentation, it found that the consent amount potentially violated the Judicature (Court Bailiffs) Rules limiting professional fees to 3% of amounts recovered. The court referred the matter to the taxing master to determine whether the consent was consistent with the statutory scale, and if not, to tax the bill of costs in accordance with the Rules.

Outcome

Matter remitted to taxing master for determination of whether consent certificate complies with statutory fee scale

Facts

The applicant Namakula had obtained a decree in her favour in earlier proceedings dividing matrimonial property with her former husband. The respondent bailiff was engaged to execute the decree. After execution was completed and property valued at UGX 1,728,000,000 was allocated to each party, the bailiff filed a bill of costs. Before taxation, the parties entered into a consent certificate of taxation on 14 November 2018, endorsed by the Deputy Registrar on 30 November 2018, agreeing that the bailiff's fees would be UGX 51,840,000. The applicant later sought to set aside the consent, alleging she did not understand its contents, that it was not translated to her, and that the amount was excessive and contrary to statutory fee scales. The bailiff countered that the consent was explained to both parties by the applicant's lawyer before signing, and sought to enforce it through committal proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient ground for review of the consent certificate of taxation.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The matter be and is hereby referred to the taxing master to ensure that the consent certificate of taxation is in consonance with the Judicature (Court Bailiffs) Rules.
  • If the answer in a) above is in the negative, the taxing master shall tax the bill of costs previously filed by the respondent.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Consent Judgments — Setting Aside — Grounds
A consent judgment or order, once endorsed by court, becomes the judgment of the court and is binding on the parties. It can only be set aside on grounds that would enable the court to set aside any judgment or order: fraud, collusion, agreement contrary to public policy, entry without sufficient material facts, misapprehension or ignorance of material facts, or any reason that would enable a court to set aside an agreement generally.
Civil Procedure — Review — Consent Orders — Vitiating Factors — Proof Required
The ground for vitiation of a consent judgment must relate to the conduct of the parties at the time of execution of consent. Where a party alleges fraud, mistake, or misrepresentation to vitiate a consent, these grounds must be proved in the manner required by law, which is by way of ordinary suit allowing for full disclosure of exhibits and examination of witnesses.
Civil Procedure — Court Bailiffs — Fees and Remuneration — Statutory Scale
Under the Judicature (Court Bailiffs) Rules 2022, court bailiffs are entitled to professional fees of 3% of the amount recovered. Expenses incurred in the execution process form part of the professional fees and shall not be charged additionally unless allowed by court after a finding that they are necessary and reasonable in the circumstances.
Civil Procedure — Court Bailiffs — Fees — Unjust Enrichment
A bailiff must not be seen to unjustly enrich himself by charging fees in excess of the statutory scale. Where parties consent to an amount that potentially exceeds the statutory entitlement after deducting expenses, the court has a prerogative to intervene to ensure that the consent does not disadvantage one party through misrepresentation or lack of understanding of material facts.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (5)

  • Hirani v Kassam [1952] EA 131
  • Attorney General & Another v James Mark Kamoga & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Babigumira John & Others v Hoima Council [2001-2005] HCB 116
  • Pavement Civil Works Ltd v Andrew Kirungi (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 292 of 2002)
  • Krone Uganda Ltd v Kerilee Investments Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 306 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namakula v Lukwebe (Miscellaneous Application 1024 of 2023) [2024] UGHCFD 47 (18 April 2024)
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.