Owere Franco t/a Leads Associates and Others v Male H. Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka and Another (Miscellaneous Appeal No.004 of 2016)
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 struck out an appeal from a taxation ruling because the appellant failed to file a certified copy of the proceedings and ruling, and critically, failed to annex the bill of costs which was the foundation of the appeal. The court also dismissed the respondents' cross-appeal as incompetent, having been filed fourteen days outside the thirty-day statutory period prescribed by section 62(1) of the Advocates Act without leave or extension of time.
Outcome
Both appeal and cross-appeal dismissed as incompetent
Facts
The appellants appealed a taxation ruling in MA No. 2763 of 2014, challenging various aspects of costs awarded to the respondents. The grounds included allegations that respondents were awarded counsel fees despite not being represented, sums for multiple copies when only one was needed, and excessive costs. The 1st appellant filed a supporting affidavit on 29 March 2016, to which the 1st respondent replied on 12 April 2016. The court directed written submissions which were filed. The respondents also filed a cross-appeal on 12 April 2016. The taxation ruling and certificate were dated 29 February 2016 and 1 March 2016 respectively.
Issues
- Whether the appeal is competent without a certified copy of proceedings and the bill of costs
- Whether the cross-appeal was filed within the statutory time limit under section 62(1) of the Advocates Act
Orders
- The appeal is incompetently before court.
- The appeal is struck out with costs to the respondents.
- The cross-appeal is incompetently before court.
- The cross-appeal is dismissed with costs to the appellants.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.