Wakilii

Namiika v Sebunya & Others (Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCFD 12 · 2024 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous appeal from a taxation ruling dismissing a bill of costs on the ground that counsel lacked a valid practicing certificate
Decision
Bill of costs remitted for taxation with specific instructions on disallowance of costs attributable to advocate's attendance while practicing without valid certificate

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 where an advocate practices without a valid practicing certificate, section 14A(1)(b) of the Advocates (Amendment) Act 2002 protects the client's case from dismissal. The taxing master erred in dismissing the entire bill of costs. The court distinguished between costs attributable to the errant advocate's court attendance and costs due to the client directly for other legitimate legal work. Only costs directly attributable to the advocate who lacked a valid certificate should be disallowed. The taxation was remitted for fresh assessment with instructions to disallow only the specific costs related to the advocate's attendance on the date in question.

Outcome

Bill of costs remitted for taxation with specific instructions on disallowance of costs attributable to advocate's attendance while practicing without valid certificate

Facts

The respondents instituted Civil Suit No. 185 of 2020 against the appellant. The appellant filed Misc. Application No. 200 of 2022 to dismiss the suit for failure to effect service of summons. On 24 March 2022, the trial judge dismissed the suit with costs to the appellant. The appellant's lawyers filed a bill of costs in Taxation No. 35 of 2022. During taxation, the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appellant's counsel, Senkumi Nicholas, did not have a valid practicing certificate on 24 March 2022 when he appeared in court, having last renewed it on 16 April 2021. The taxing master allowed the objection and dismissed the entire taxation application on 6 March 2023. The appellant appealed, contending that the taxing master erred in dismissing the entire application rather than distinguishing between costs attributable to the errant advocate and costs due to the client for other legitimate legal work.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxation master erred when she dismissed the entire taxation application No. 35 of 2022.
  2. Whether the taxation ruling dated 6 March 2023 dismissing the entire taxation application No. 35 of 2022 should be set aside and the bill taxed accordingly.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • The bill of costs is reverted for taxation, with a proviso that the costs attributable to Mr. Senkumi's attendance of court on the 24th of March 2022 be disallowed and that the appellant proves legitimate costs.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Advocate Practicing Without Valid Certificate — Effect on Client's Entitlement to Costs
Where an advocate practices without a valid practicing certificate, section 14A(1)(b) of the Advocates (Amendment) Act 2002 provides that the client's case shall not be dismissed by reason of such event. The client cannot be made to suffer the consequences of the lawyer's failure to hold a valid practicing certificate, and remains entitled to recover costs awarded by the court, save for costs directly attributable to work done by the errant advocate.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Distinction Between Advocate's Fees and Client's Costs
In taxation proceedings where an advocate lacked a valid practicing certificate, the taxing master must distinguish between instruction fees and other costs attributable to the errant advocate, and costs due to the client per se. The taxing master should disallow only those costs directly attributable to the advocate who committed the offence, not the entire bill of costs where other legitimate legal work was performed by the firm.
Administrative Law — Professional Regulation — Advocates — Practicing Without Certificate — Scope of Illegality
While practicing without a valid practicing certificate is an illegality that touches on the professionalism of an advocate and impacts the ability to claim instruction fees and reimbursables incurred by that lawyer, the scope of such illegality does not extend to deny the client all costs awarded by the court. The illegality is personal to the advocate and affects only costs attributable to that advocate's specific work.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (1)

  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 05 of 1981)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namiika v Sebunya & Others (Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2023) [2024] UGHCFD 12 (22 February 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.