Wakilii

Punjab Motors Limited v Njuba (Civil Appeal 29 of 1998)

Court of Appeal · [1999] UGCA 40 · 1999 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from a High Court decision on appeal against the Taxing Master's taxation of an advocate's bill of costs
Decision
Appeal dismissed; taxation of the advocate's bill of costs upheld

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 of Appeal dismissed the appeal against taxation of an advocate's bill of costs. It held that the appellant bore the burden of proving that the respondent acted while lacking a practicing certificate and had failed to discharge it; the respondent's supporting affidavits properly adduced evidence and were validly relied upon. The court further held, contrary to the High Court, that under section 49 of the Advocates Act, where retainer is not disputed, an advocate need not file a suit before recovering taxed costs; the taxing officer's certificate is final unless altered by court. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent here and in the High Court.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; taxation of the advocate's bill of costs upheld

Facts

The respondent, an advocate, rendered legal services to the appellant company between December 1996 and April 1997 and demanded payment of shs.1,872,000/=. Although the appellant appeared to accept liability, it consistently failed to pay. The respondent applied to the High Court for taxation of a bill of costs of shs.11,700,000/=. While the application was pending the appellant paid shs.1,872,000/= by cheque, which the respondent treated as part-payment. The Taxing Master held the respondent entitled to be paid under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules and taxed the bill at shs.11,700,000/=. The appellant appealed to the High Court, raising for the first time that the respondent had no practicing certificate when he rendered services. The High Court found merit only in grounds (ii) and (iii) but ultimately dismissed the substance, holding the respondent must file a suit to recover. The appellant then brought this second appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent advocate held a valid practicing certificate at all material times when he acted for the appellant and was therefore entitled to costs.
  2. Whether the High Court judge erred in finding for the respondent on grounds (iv) to (vii) of the appeal in light of his findings on grounds (ii) and (iii).
  3. Whether an advocate must file a suit to recover taxed costs where retainer is not disputed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Costs of the High Court appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocate's Costs — Recovery of Taxed Costs — Whether Suit Required Where Retainer Not Disputed
Under section 49 of the Advocates Act, the certificate of the taxing officer is final as to the amount of costs unless set aside or altered by the court, and where retainer is not disputed it is unnecessary for the advocate to file a suit before recovering the taxed costs.
Taxation of Costs — Burden of Proof — Practicing Certificate of Advocate
Where a client alleges that an advocate acted without a practicing certificate so as to defeat a claim for costs, the burden lies on the client to prove on a balance of probabilities that the advocate lacked a valid practicing certificate during the period the services were rendered.
Affidavits — Affidavit in Taxation and Appeal Proceedings — Whether May Adduce Evidence
An affidavit accompanying a taxation application or filed in reply to an appeal is not rendered invalid merely because it adduces evidence; an affidavit drawn under section 3 of the Taxation of Costs (Appeals and References) Rules is valid so long as it complies with that section's requirements.
Advocates Act — Sections 56 and 57 — Requirements for Recovery of Costs Against Client
Sections 56 and 57 of the Advocates Act do not require a 'proper and extracted order' or a bill of costs lodged subsequent to obtaining an extracted order; substantial compliance with the Act is achieved where the advocate draws a bill, serves it on the client and applies for its taxation.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • UDB -vs- Muhammad Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co Advocates (Civil Appeal No.35 of ...)
  • Prof. Saved Huq Civil Appeal No. 47/1995 (S.C)
  • Lukera, An Advocate (Miscellaneous Cause No. 76 of 1973)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Punjab Motors Limited v Njuba (Civil Appeal 29 of 1998) [1999] UGCA 40 (16 February 1999)
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.