Wakilii

Punjani Motors Limited v Sam K . Njuba (Miscellaneous Taxation Appeal 1144 of 1997)

High Court · [1998] UGHC 27 · 1998 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of Registrar as Taxing Master allowing advocate's bill of costs
Decision
Appeal succeeded in part. VAT award set aside. Respondent required to file suit for recovery of taxed costs before execution.

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 held that the advocate had a valid practising certificate at all times when he acted for the appellant, having received instructions while certified and completing the work after renewal, and was therefore entitled to recover costs. The court found that the advocate properly filed a bill of costs for taxation after the client refused to pay fees demanded outside the rules, and the payment made was correctly treated as part-payment. However, the award of VAT was set aside because there was no evidence of payment to the revenue authority or registration for VAT purposes. The costs allowed were not excessive given the value of the property.

Outcome

Appeal succeeded in part. VAT award set aside. Respondent required to file suit for recovery of taxed costs before execution.

Facts

Between December 1996 and April 1997, the respondent advocate rendered legal services to the appellant company, including sub-dividing plot 32 Jinja Road into two plots and securing release of the original title deed mortgaged to Crane Bank. On 29 April 1997, the respondent delivered a bill of costs totalling UGX 11,700,000 (including VAT). The appellant had previously paid UGX 1,872,000. On 12 June 1997, the respondent filed a Notice of Motion for taxation of the advocate/client costs. On 8 December 1997, the Registrar as Taxing Master allowed the bill in the sum of UGX 11,700,000 less the amount already paid. The appellant appealed on multiple grounds including that the advocate had no valid practising certificate when performing the work, that there was no proper order, that the costs were excessive, and that VAT should not have been allowed.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent advocate was entitled to any costs when he allegedly practised without a valid practising certificate.
  2. Whether there was a proper and extracted order for taxation and whether a suit for recovery of costs must be filed after taxation.
  3. Whether the Taxing Master erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to abandon his earlier bill and whether payment made was part-payment.
  4. Whether the Taxing Master erred in relying on an affidavit filed in support of the application rather than in the taxation proceedings.
  5. Whether the items charged fell under the Fifth Schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules.
  6. Whether the Taxing Master erred in allowing a claim for unpaid VAT.
  7. Whether the costs allowed were grossly excessive.

Orders

  • The sum of UGX 782,000 allowed for VAT is set aside.
  • The respondent cannot execute the taxing certificate unless he first files a suit for recovery of costs as determined by the taxing master.
  • Each party to bear his own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocates Act — Practising Certificate — Timing of Renewal — Instructions Received While Certified
An advocate who receives instructions while holding a valid practising certificate, acts on those instructions while still certified, and completes the work after renewing the certificate, is entitled to recover costs even if the matter remained pending with other authorities during a period when the advocate had no valid certificate. Section 68 of the Advocates Act only prevents recovery of costs for work actually done when the advocate had no valid practising certificate.
Taxation of Costs — Advocate/Client Bills — Procedure for Recovery After Taxation
Under section 59(2) of the Advocates Act, after a bill of costs has been taxed and the taxing certificate issued, it is necessary for the advocate to file a suit for the recovery of the costs from the client unless the retainer is not disputed and the court makes an order that judgment be entered for the sum certified.
Taxation of Costs — Abandonment of Earlier Bill — Part-Payment
Where an advocate initially offers fees outside the rules and the client refuses to pay, the advocate is entitled to file a bill of costs for taxation by the court. Any payment made by the client after the bill of costs has been filed for taxation is properly treated as part-payment of the taxed amount.
Taxation of Costs — Fifth Schedule — Non-Contentious Business Without Specific Provision
Sub-division of property without sale and negotiating with a mortgagee for release of a title deed for purposes of cancellation and replacement with new titles are not provided for in the first, second, third or fourth schedules of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules. Under rule 12(e), such non-contentious business for which remuneration is not otherwise provided for falls under the Fifth Schedule.
Taxation of Costs — Value Added Tax — Requirement of Proof of Payment and Registration
If VAT has not been paid at the time of taxation and no receipts have been issued, or if the advocate has not proven registration for VAT purposes, taxation of that item should be deferred until VAT is paid and receipts issued or the advocate proves to the Taxing Master that he is duly registered for VAT.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (6)

  • Duggans and Co. Advocates v Life Insurance Corporation (1979 HCB 198)
  • Alfred Olwora v Commissioner General URA (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1992)
  • In re Mukasa (Miscellaneous Cause No. 76 of 1973)
  • Lwero Growers Ltd vs Mombeni Corporation and Hessania Issa & Co. vs Geral (1967) E.A. 555
  • Lwero Growers Ltd v Mombeni (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1995)
  • Patrick Mabumbi & Anor v Soltex Ltd (Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Punjani Motors Limited v Sam K . Njuba (Miscellaneous Taxation Appeal 1144 of 1997) [1998] UGHC 27 (14 April 1998)
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.