Wakilii

Njuba v Sebula (Application 1 of 2012)

East African Court of Justice · [2013] EACJ 1 · 2013 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Applications for extension of time to file bills of costs arising from Reference No. 1 of 2010
Decision
Applications granted; applicants given 14 days to file bills of costs

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 court granted both applications for extension of time to file bills of costs. The letters written by the respondent personally to the applicants did not constitute proper service under Rule 2(2) because the respondent was represented by advocates and had not formally withdrawn instructions. The letters were addressed to individuals rather than to the law firms on record. A party who fails to file a bill of costs within 21 days does not forfeit the right to file, as the Registrar has discretion to extend time. The delay was not inordinate and sufficient reasons were established to warrant extension of time.

Outcome

Applications granted; applicants given 14 days to file bills of costs

Facts

In Reference No. 1 of 2010, the East African Court of Justice struck off the 3rd and 4th Respondents (the applicants herein) and ordered the Applicant in that reference (the respondent herein) to pay their costs. The respondent, Hon. Sitenda Sebalu, was represented by two law firms. After judgment, the respondent personally wrote letters to the applicants requesting bills of costs. The applicants did not file their bills within 21 days. The respondent's advocates then wrote to the Registrar stating that the 21-day period had lapsed and requesting that bills not be accepted. The applicants then filed applications for extension of time to file their bills of costs, arguing that the letters were improperly served because they were personal letters not addressed to the law firms on record, and that the lawyers had not received them in time due to travel and other commitments.

Issues

  1. Whether a party represented by an advocate in a case can act in person without formally withdrawing instructions or filing a notice of change of advocate.
  2. Whether the letters in contention served on the applicants by the respondent constituted proper service as envisaged under Rule 2(2) of the Taxation of Costs Rules.
  3. Whether, under Rule 2(2) Second Schedule: Taxation of Costs of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, a party who fails to lodge a bill of costs within 21 days of receiving a request from the party liable forfeits his right to file a bill.
  4. Whether the delay was inordinate.
  5. Whether sufficient reasons have been established, as provided under Rule 4 of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, to warrant an extension of time to file bills of costs.

Orders

  • Applications No. 1 and 2 of 2012 are granted.
  • The applicants are ordered to file their respective bills of costs within 14 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Representation — Change of Advocate — Notice Requirements
Where a party is represented by an advocate on record, the party cannot act in person without formally withdrawing instructions or filing a notice of change of advocate as required by Rule 18 of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure.
Service of Documents — Address for Service — Advocates on Record
Where a party is represented by a law firm, correspondence relating to the matter must be addressed to the law firm as indicated in the address for service in the court pleadings, not to the party personally or to individual advocates in their personal capacity.
Taxation of Costs — Time Limits — Registrar's Discretion
Under Rule 2(2) of the Second Schedule (Taxation of Costs Rules) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, a party who fails to lodge a bill of costs within 21 days of receiving a request from the party liable does not forfeit the right to file a bill, as the Registrar has discretion to allow such further time.
Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason — Unfettered Discretion
The court's unfettered discretion to extend time under Rule 4 arises only after sufficient reason for extension of time has been established. The court will consider whether the application is brought promptly and whether shutting out the application would cause injustice.
Inordinate Delay — Assessment — Circumstances of the Case
What constitutes inordinate delay depends on the circumstances of the case and the effects of the delay on the other party. The court considers whether the delay prejudices the interest of the respondent and whether it gives rise to a substantial risk.

Legislation cited (8)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 2(2) (Second Schedule: Taxation of Costs Rules)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 4
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 8(6)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 10
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 14
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 17
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 17(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 18

Cases cited (6)

  • Anyang Nyongo & Others v Attorney General of Kenya (Applications No. 1 & 2 of 2010)
  • Arodi & Another v Waweru (Civil Application No. 127 of 1997)
  • Bugiriza v Osapil (Application No. 7 of 2005)
  • Katatumba v Karim (Civil Application No. 27 of 2007)
  • Carroll Shipping Ltd V Mathews Mulcahy and Sutherland Ltd, Unreported, High Court Kenya, 18 December 1996
  • Byrne V ITGWU, Unreported, High Court Kenya, 30 November 1995

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Njuba v Sebula (Application 1 of 2012) [2013] EACJ 1 (12 February 2013)
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.