Wakilii

Remtulla v Esmail (C.C. 55-1934 (Mombasa))

East African Court of Appeal · [1937] EACA 205 · 1937 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to reverse a ruling of the Acting Deputy Registrar in taxation of costs
Decision
Registrar's ruling reversed; full advocate's fee allowed for attendance when case adjourned at opposing party's request

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 the phrase 'case cannot be taken' in the Rules of Court refers to the court's inability to take the case, not to adjournments granted at a party's request. Where an advocate prepares for and attends court on a fixed hearing date but the case is adjourned at the opposing party's request, the advocate is entitled to full remuneration for wasted time, not the reduced fee applicable when the court itself cannot take the case.

Outcome

Registrar's ruling reversed; full advocate's fee allowed for attendance when case adjourned at opposing party's request

Facts

The advocates' clerks fixed the case for hearing on 19 August 1935. On that date, both advocates appeared in court. The defendant's advocate produced a telegram and requested an adjournment on grounds of his client's illness. The court granted the adjournment and awarded costs of the day to the plaintiffs. In the Bill of Costs, the plaintiff claimed Sh. 70 for attendance at court conducting the cause for half a day. On taxation, the Acting Deputy Registrar allowed only Sh. 30, applying the reduced fee provision for cases that cannot be taken when notice is given the previous day. The plaintiff applied to reverse this ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether an advocate is entitled to full remuneration for attendance in court when a case is adjourned at the request of the opposing party rather than due to the court's inability to take the case.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Registrar ordered to allow Item 27 of the Bill of Costs at Sh. 70.
  • Costs of the application to the applicant fixed at Sh. 98.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocates' Remuneration and Taxation of Costs — Attendance in Court — Adjournment at Party's Request
The phrase 'case cannot be taken' in the Rules of Court refers to the inability of the court itself to take the case, not to cases where an adjournment is granted at the request of one of the parties or their advocates for their convenience.
Advocates' Remuneration — Full Fee for Wasted Attendance
Where an advocate prepares for and attends court on a date fixed for hearing but the case is adjourned at the opposing party's request rather than due to the court's inability to sit, the advocate is entitled to full remuneration for wasted time, not the reduced fee applicable when the court cannot take the case.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Rules of Court No. 2 of 1916

Cases cited (1)

  • 11 K.L.R. 49

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Remtulla v Esmail (C.C. 55-1934 (Mombasa)) [1937] EACA 205 (1 January 1937)
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.