Wakilii

Ramuji v East African Power and Lighting Co. Ltd (C.C. 111-1926.)

East African Court of Justice · [1927] EACJ 4 · 1927 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of costs following objections to taxing officer's rulings
Decision
Taxing officer's rulings upheld on both points

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 an advocate is entitled to Sh. 30 for attendance when a case cannot be heard and no notice has been given on the previous day. The relevant paragraph in the Rules should be construed with the word 'no' read before 'notice' to conform with context. Further held that where one sixth of a bill of costs (exclusive of court fees) is disallowed, the party presenting the bill is not entitled to costs arising from preparation and service of the bill or the fee for attendance at taxation.

Outcome

Taxing officer's rulings upheld on both points

Facts

Plaintiff sought to tax costs following litigation. The taxing officer allowed Sh. 30 for an attendance in court on a day fixed for hearing when the case was not reached, rather than the claimed Sh. 70. Counsel had attended prepared to conduct the case with witnesses in attendance. The taxing officer reduced the bill by one-sixth and disallowed items arising from preparation and service of the bill as well as the fee for attendance at taxation under Rule 41. Plaintiff objected to both rulings. The taxing officer had followed a settled practice based on a previous decision by Fawcett in Civil Case No. 81 of 1912, which had been upheld on objection by Hamilton CJ.

Issues

  1. Whether a plaintiff is entitled to charge Sh. 70 for attendance in court on a day fixed for hearing when the case was not reached and no prior notice was given that the case would not be taken.
  2. What costs items are disallowed under Rule 41 when one sixth of a bill of costs (exclusive of court fees) is reduced.

Orders

  • Objection to taxing officer's ruling allowing Sh. 30 (rather than Sh. 70) for attendance dismissed.
  • Objection to taxing officer's disallowance of items arising from preparation and service of bill and attendance fee at taxation dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Advocates' Fees — Attendance When Case Not Heard
An advocate is entitled to a fee of Sh. 30 for attendance in court on a day fixed for hearing when the case cannot be taken and no notice has been given on the previous day that the case will not be taken.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Statutory Interpretation
Where a paragraph in the Rules of Court is difficult to construe but the context indicates that a word has been omitted, the court may import that word to give effect to the apparent intention and ensure conformity with the overall scheme of the Rules.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Disallowance of Taxation Costs
Where one sixth of a bill of costs, exclusive of court fees, is disallowed on taxation, the party presenting the bill is not entitled to the items arising from the preparation and service of the bill or to the fee for attendance at taxation.
Civil Procedure — Precedent — Taxation Practice
In matters of taxation, where no appeal lies from a decision or ruling of a judge, it is desirable as a matter of principle that previous rulings of the court should be followed to avoid uncertainty in the minds of advocates and litigants as to what practice obtains.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Rules of Court (Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) No. 2 of 1916 Rule 41

Cases cited (1)

  • Civil Case No. 81 of 1912

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ramuji v East African Power and Lighting Co. Ltd (C.C. 111-1926.) [1927] EACJ 4 (1 January 1927)
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.