Wakilii

Ramuji v East African Power and Lighting Co. Ltd (Civil Case No. 111 of 1926)

East African Court of Appeal · [1927] EACA 7 · 1927 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on objections to taxing officer's decisions on bill of costs
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

The court held that when a case cannot be heard and no notice has been given on the previous day, the advocate's fee for attendance is limited to Sh. 30 under the Rules of Court. The court construed the relevant rule by importing the word 'no' before 'notice' to conform with context. On the second issue, the court held that where one-sixth of a bill of costs (exclusive of court fees) is disallowed, the party is not entitled to items arising from preparation and service of the bill or the fee for attendance at taxation, following established practice and a previous ruling by Hamilton CJ.

Outcome

Taxing officer's rulings upheld on both points

Facts

The plaintiff's advocate attended court on a day fixed for hearing when the case was not reached. The advocate had witnesses in attendance and was prepared to conduct the case. The advocate claimed Sh. 70 for this attendance, but the taxing officer allowed only Sh. 30. Additionally, the taxing officer reduced the bill of costs by one-sixth and disallowed all items arising from preparation and service of the bill and the fee for attendance at taxation under Rule 41. The plaintiff objected to both rulings, and the matter was referred to the judge for determination.

Issues

  1. Whether an advocate is entitled to charge Sh. 70 for attendance in court on a day fixed for hearing when the case was not reached and no notice was given that the case would not be taken.
  2. What is the meaning of the words 'shall not be entitled to the costs of such taxation' in Rule 41 when one-sixth of the bill of costs is disallowed.

Orders

  • Objection to taxing officer's allowance of Sh. 30 (rather than Sh. 70) for attendance dismissed.
  • Objection to taxing officer's disallowance of costs of taxation dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Advocates' Fees — Attendance When Case Not Heard
Under the Rules of Court (Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) No. 2 of 1916, when a case cannot be heard on a day fixed for hearing and no notice has been given on the previous day that the case will not be taken, the advocate's fee for attendance is Sh. 30.
Costs — Taxation — Statutory Interpretation of Fee Provisions
In construing a provision in the Rules of Court relating to advocates' fees for attendance, where the literal reading produces an absurd result inconsistent with the context, the court may read words into the provision to give effect to its apparent intention, particularly where the subject matter relates to circumstances requiring attendance.
Costs — Taxation — Disallowance of Costs Where Bill Reduced by One-Sixth
Under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court (Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) No. 2 of 1916, 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 out of the preparation and service of the bill or to the fee for attendance at taxation.
Costs — Taxation — Stare Decisis in Taxation Matters
In matters of taxation, where no appeal lies from a ruling of a judge, it is desirable as a matter of principle that previous rulings of the court 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 (Civil Case No. 111 of 1926) [1927] EACA 7 (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.