Wakilii

Namatovu Halima and Others v Kasana, Mpungu & Co. Advocates (Miscellaneous Application No. 1639 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCFD 144 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of an order granting leave to tax an advocate-client bill of costs
Decision
Application dismissed; taxation of advocate-client bill of costs to proceed before the Tax Master

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

Held that applicants failed to show sufficient cause to warrant review of the order granting leave to tax the advocate-client bill of costs. The grounds raised — payment receipts not attached by previous counsel and failure to file submissions — do not constitute new evidence, mistake apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason under Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The choice of advocate was the applicants' own and the consequences of that advocate's negligence cannot be transferred to the respondent advocates. Application denied; taxation to proceed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; taxation of advocate-client bill of costs to proceed before the Tax Master

Facts

The applicants hired the respondent law firm to represent them in Civil Suit No. 156 of 2023 for an agreed fee of UGX 10,000,000, which they paid. The respondents subsequently handled additional interlocutory applications and demanded further fees of UGX 50,600,000 for the main suit. The applicants disputed this demand and engaged new counsel without settling the respondents' fees. The respondents obtained leave to tax their advocate-client bill of costs in Miscellaneous Cause No. 34 of 2024. The applicants applied for review, alleging that they had paid all agreed fees and that the respondents failed to disclose prior payments to court. They also blamed their previous counsel for not filing receipts or submissions. The respondents contended that additional services were always to be billed separately and that the applicants absconded without paying outstanding fees.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have shown sufficient cause to warrant setting aside the order granting leave to tax.
  2. Whether the Application discloses any merit.
  3. Whether the Application amounts to an abuse of court process.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application denied.
  • The Tax Master shall proceed with Taxation Application No. 58 of 2024.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Orders — Grounds for Review under Order 46 Rule 1
An application for review under Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be based on discovery of new and important evidence not previously available despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason analogous to these grounds.
Civil Procedure — Review of Orders — Negligence of Previous Counsel
The negligence of a party's previous counsel in failing to adduce evidence or file submissions does not constitute sufficient ground for review of an order where such negligence is the consequence of the party's own choice of advocate and does not amount to new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Right to Tax Not Defeated by Subsequent Review Application
Where leave to tax an advocate-client bill of costs has been properly granted, a subsequent application for review on the ground that prior payments were made does not defeat the advocate's right to taxation, as disputed amounts may be addressed during the pre-taxation meeting under Section 13A of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (2)

  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd (1979) HCB 12
  • FX Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namatovu Halima and Others v Kasana, Mpungu & Co. Advocates (Miscellaneous Application No. 1639 of 2024) [2025] UGHCFD 144 (16 October 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.