Wakilii

Nyuma Albert v Mawa Alfred (Taxation Appeal No. 3 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 860 · 2025 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from taxing master's decision allowing recovery of costs by a law firm that did not represent the party in the underlying matters
Decision
Certificates of taxation set aside; appeal allowed with costs to the Applicant

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

A law firm that did not represent a party in the underlying litigation cannot file a bill of costs to recover costs awarded in those matters. An advocate cannot claim fees for work they did not perform, and a successor advocate should not benefit from work performed by a predecessor firm. The principle that advocates cannot reap where they did not sow applies in the High Court, not only in the Supreme Court.

Outcome

Certificates of taxation set aside; appeal allowed with costs to the Applicant

Facts

The Applicant was successful in Civil Suit No. 029 of 2007 against the Respondent. The Respondent successfully challenged the certificate of taxation in Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 2015 and was awarded costs. The Respondent was represented in the main suit and the challenge application by M/s Matovu & Matovu Advocates. The Respondent then filed two applications (Miscellaneous Applications No. 33 and 34 of 2019) to recover the costs awarded in the challenge application, but was represented by a different firm, M/s Kodili & Co. Advocates. The taxing master allowed these applications. The Applicant appealed, arguing that M/s Kodili & Co. Advocates had not represented the Respondent in the underlying matters and therefore could not file bills of costs for work they did not perform. A consent letter from the original firm was dated after the applications were filed.

Issues

  1. Whether a law firm that did not represent a party in the underlying matters can file a bill of costs to recover costs awarded in those matters.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Certificates of taxation in Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 2019 and Miscellaneous Application No. 34 of 2019 set aside.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Bills of Costs — Entitlement to File
A law firm that did not represent a party in the underlying litigation has no basis to file a bill of costs to recover costs awarded in those matters, as an advocate cannot claim fees for work they did not perform.
Taxation of Costs — Change of Advocates — Successor Advocate's Rights
A successor advocate should not benefit from work performed by a predecessor advocate. Only the advocate currently on record who performed the work can lodge or tax a bill of costs for that work.
Taxation of Costs — Supreme Court Principles — Application to High Court
The principle established by the Supreme Court that advocates cannot reap where they did not sow applies equally in the High Court, as there is no justification for different treatment of advocates practicing before different courts.
Taxation of Costs — Consent by Former Advocate — Timing and Authority
A consent letter from a former advocate authorising a successor firm to handle taxation applications is ineffective if dated after the applications were filed, as the applications were filed without the authority of the firm that performed the underlying work.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Okodoi George and another v Okello Opaire (Taxation Appeal No. 143 of 2016)
  • Hajji Haruna Mulangwa v Shariff Osman (Civil Reference No. 3 of 2004)
  • Bhatt v Singh (1962) E.A 103
  • Administrator General v Jovia Kyomugisha and others (HCMA No. 201 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nyuma Albert v Mawa Alfred (Taxation Appeal No. 3 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 860 (14 August 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.