Wakilii

Registred Trustees of The Khoja Shiaithna Shari v Sule Pharmacy Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CA 25 of 2010)

High Court · [2012] UGCOMMC 32 · 2012 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Registrar's taxation of costs under Section 62 of the Advocates Act and Rule 3 of the Taxation of Costs (Appeals and References) Rules
Decision
Taxation award set aside and matter remitted for fresh taxation before the Registrar

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 allowed the appeal in part. The dismissal of the first bill of costs on technical grounds did not bar the filing of a fresh bill. However, the Registrar erred by proceeding to taxation exparte without first ruling on the preliminary objection. The Registrar also erred in allowing a bill that did not separately list work done by different law firms. The taxation award was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh taxation.

Outcome

Taxation award set aside and matter remitted for fresh taxation before the Registrar

Facts

The respondent successfully sued the appellants and was awarded costs. On 24 September 2010, the Registrar taxed the respondent's bill of costs at UGX 8,259,838 following an exparte hearing. The respondent's first bill of costs had been dismissed on a preliminary point of law for want of form. A subsequent bill was presented, and the appellants raised a preliminary objection that the Registrar was functus officio. When the respondent was to reply to the objection, counsel for the appellants was absent and the Registrar proceeded exparte without ruling on the objection. The bill of costs was prepared by Makeera & Co. Advocates, but the case had been handled by counsel while he was at a previous firm.

Issues

  1. Whether the Registrar erred in law when she taxed a bill of costs that she had earlier dismissed.
  2. Whether the Registrar erred when she failed to dispose of preliminary objections before ordering taxation to proceed exparte.
  3. Whether the Registrar erred when she taxed a bill of costs which was not fixed for hearing and neither of the parties served.
  4. Whether the Registrar erred when she taxed a bill of costs that was incurably defective for contravening taxation laws.
  5. Whether many of the items on the bill of costs were exaggerated and/or not justified.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant.
  • The taxation award made by the Registrar is set aside.
  • The taxation is ordered to be heard de novo in line with the findings made above.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Dismissal of Bill for Want of Form — Effect on Subsequent Bill
The dismissal of a bill of costs at the preliminary objection stage for want of form does not render the Registrar functus officio and does not bar the filing of a fresh bill, as the dismissal was not on the merits and was not a final decision on taxation.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Duty to Rule Before Proceeding to Merits
Where a preliminary objection has been raised and submitted upon by both parties, the court must rule on the preliminary objection before proceeding to hear the merits of the case. Failure to do so constitutes an error or misdirection.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Multiple Law Firms — Requirement to List Work Separately
Where a case has been handled by counsel while attached to different law firms at different times, the items in the bill of costs must be listed separately for each firm to avoid one firm claiming for work it did not do. A bill presented as if all work was done by one advocate is defective.
Civil Procedure — Appeals from Taxation — Grounds for Interference
An appellate court will interfere with a decision of a taxing officer only in exceptional circumstances: where the award is manifestly excessive or low; where there has been a misdirection; or where the award has been arrived at on wrong principles.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (7)

  • Arthur v Nyeri Electrician Undertaking [1961] EA 492
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993)
  • Buckbod Investments Ltd v Nana Otchere & Anor [1985] 1 All ER 283
  • Daniel Sempa Mbabali v Administrator General [1992-1993] HCB 243
  • National Union of Clerical, Commercial and Technical Employees v National Insurance Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • National Union of Clerical, Commercial and Technical Employees v National Insurance Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1993)
  • Haji Haruna Mulagwa v Sharif Osman (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1995) [2004] KALR 303

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Registred Trustees of The Khoja Shiaithna Shari v Sule Pharmacy Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CA 25 of 2010) [2012] UGCommC 32 (23 April 2012)
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.