Wakilii

Peter Jogo Tabu & Co. Advocates v Waco (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0030 of 2009)

High Court · [2016] UGHCCD 68 · 2016 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to tax advocate/client bill of costs
Decision
Matter referred to Taxing Officer for taxation of advocate/client bill 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

Held that section 57 of the Advocates Act is procedural rather than jurisdictional. Where a client has had knowledge of the bill of costs for over two years through service of court documents and has had opportunity to challenge it, strict compliance with pre-filing service requirements may be dispensed with if no substantial prejudice results. The purpose of section 57 is to afford clients opportunity to review costs before litigation; where that purpose is achieved through other means, the court may exercise discretion to allow taxation. Application for taxation of advocate/client bill of costs granted.

Outcome

Matter referred to Taxing Officer for taxation of advocate/client bill of costs

Facts

In 2002, the respondent engaged the applicant law firm to handle criminal litigation on his behalf. The respondent was convicted of making false claims in Nebbi Chief Magistrate's Court Criminal Case No. 60 of 2002, then successfully appealed to the High Court which quashed the conviction on 6 July 2005. A dispute arose over fees payable. The applicant claimed the respondent paid fees only for a bail application but nothing for trial defence or appeal prosecution. The applicant alleged service of an advocate/client bill of costs on the respondent on 10 June 2009, then filed this application on 23 October 2009 seeking leave to have the bill taxed. The respondent denied receiving the bill of costs and claimed he had paid all fees in full but received no receipts. The application was not heard until 2016 due to repeated adjournments.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent was properly served with the advocate/client bill of costs in accordance with section 57(2)(b) of the Advocates Act.
  2. Whether the court should grant leave for the advocate/client bill of costs to be taxed despite absence of proof of service one month before filing the application.
  3. Whether non-compliance with section 57 of the Advocates Act deprives the applicant of entitlement to have the bill of costs taxed.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The Taxing Officer to proceed to tax the applicant's advocate/client bill of costs dated 13th August 2009.
  • No order as to costs of the application due to applicant's unexplained delay of five years between October 2009 and January 2014.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocate and Client Costs — Service of Bill of Costs — Requirements of Section 57 Advocates Act
Section 57 of the Advocates Act mandates that no suit may be commenced to recover advocate's costs until one month after a bill of costs has been delivered to the party chargeable either personally, by registered post, or by leaving it at their place of business, dwelling house, or last known place of abode.
Advocate and Client Costs — Burden of Proof of Service
An advocate claiming to have served a bill of costs bears the burden of proving service beyond mere assertion. Proper proof of service requires an affidavit stating the time, manner, and circumstances of service, including the name and address of any person witnessing delivery, and ordinarily should be accompanied by evidence that the person served acknowledged receipt.
Advocate and Client Costs — Section 57 as Procedural not Jurisdictional
Section 57 of the Advocates Act is procedural rather than jurisdictional. The court has jurisdiction to tax advocate/client bills of costs, but section 57 regulates when that jurisdiction may be invoked to protect clients by affording them opportunity to review costs before litigation commences.
Advocate and Client Costs — Purpose of Pre-Service Requirements — Discretion to Dispense with Strict Compliance
Where the purpose of section 57 of the Advocates Act has been achieved through other means and the client has had knowledge of the bill of costs for a substantial period allowing opportunity to challenge it, and where no substantial prejudice would result, the court may exercise discretion to dispense with strict compliance with pre-filing service requirements.
Advocate and Client Costs — Distinction Between Application for Taxation and Suit for Recovery
Section 57 of the Advocates Act bars bringing a suit to recover costs until one month after delivery of the bill, but this prohibition does not extend to applications for leave to tax the bill. An application for taxation under section 58(5) is distinct from a suit for recovery of costs, and may proceed even where strict compliance with section 57 has not been achieved.
Advocate and Client Costs — Party and Party Costs Distinguished from Advocate/Client Costs
In taxation of party and party costs, the successful party is entitled to an indemnity limited to costs necessarily and reasonably incurred, excluding charges for luxuries or mere convenience. In contrast, in advocate/client taxation, all costs claimed are presumed reasonable unless shown to be unreasonable, and costs incurred with the express or implied approval of the client are almost irrefutably presumed to have been reasonably incurred.
Advocate and Client Costs — Role of Taxing Officer — Substantive Challenges to Liability
Issues regarding whether a client has paid fees in full, whether costs were reasonably incurred, and the extent of work done are matters for determination by the Taxing Officer, not by the court on an application for leave to tax.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (10)

  • Re An Advocate; In Re A Taxation of Costs [1955] 2 QB 252
  • Jovelyn Bamgahare v Attorney General (Court of Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
  • Margaret Kampayani and others v Joseph Zagyenda (Miscellaneous Cause No. 1035 of 2004)
  • Tobin and Twomey v Kerry Foods Ltd [1999] 1 ILRM 428
  • Gundry v Sainsbury [1910] 1 KB 645
  • Dyotte v Reid (1876) 10 ILTR 110
  • A & L Goodbody Solicitors v Colthurst [2003] IEHC 74
  • Luke Boyne v Dublin Bus [2006] IEHC 209
  • Byaruhanga and Company Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • Kibuuka Musoke and Company v The Liquidator of African Textile Mill Limited (Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Peter Jogo Tabu & Co. Advocates v Waco (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0030 of 2009) [2016] UGHCCD 68 (13 October 2016)
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.