Wakilii

Rodrigues v The British High Commission (Civil Application 7 of 1988)

Supreme Court · [1988] UGSC 6 · 1988 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a judge of the Supreme Court from the Registrar's taxation ruling under rule 109 of the Court of Appeal for East Africa Rules 1972, heard on a preliminary objection
Decision
Application struck out with costs as not properly before the court

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

On a preliminary objection, the court held that under rule 109(1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal for East Africa Rules 1972 a party dissatisfied with the taxing officer's decision cannot himself refer the matter to a judge. The dissatisfied party only signifies, informally or in writing under rule 109(3), that he requires the matter to be referred; it is then for the Registrar to refer the decision to the judge. This contrasts with rule 109(5), which expressly empowers a party to apply to the court. As the applicant had brought the application directly to the judge by notice of motion, it was not properly before the court. The objection was accepted and the application struck out with costs.

Outcome

Application struck out with costs as not properly before the court

Facts

The applicant sued the respondent in the High Court over a residential property in Kampala; the suit was dismissed on preliminary points. His appeal to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1987) was dismissed with costs and the respondent's cross-appeal allowed with costs. The respondent's bill of costs was taxed and allowed by the Registrar on 12 August 1988 under rule 108 of the Court of Appeal for East Africa Rules 1972. Dissatisfied, the applicant's counsel made an informal application for a reference to a judge under rule 109, which the taxing officer allowed. On 15 October 1988 the applicant filed a notice of motion under rule 109(1) and (2) directly before a judge, seeking an order that the taxed bill was manifestly excessive and oppressive and should be reduced. Counsel for the respondent took a preliminary objection that the application, brought by the party directly rather than referred by the Registrar, was not properly before the court.

Issues

  1. Whether a party dissatisfied with a taxing officer's decision may himself apply directly to a judge of the Supreme Court for a reference under rule 109(1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal for East Africa Rules 1972, or whether the reference must be made by the Registrar.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection accepted.
  • Application struck out with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Reference to a Judge — Who may refer under rule 109
Under rule 109(1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal for East Africa Rules 1972, a person dissatisfied with the taxing officer's decision does not himself refer the matter to a judge; he need only require the Registrar to refer the decision, and it is the Registrar who must then make the reference to the judge.
Statutory Interpretation — Rules of Court — Contrast between provisions conferring a power on the party (rule 109(5)) and those requiring action by the Registrar (rule 109(1) and (2))
Where a rule expressly empowers a party to apply to the court in one sub-rule (rule 109(5)) but is silent in another (rule 109(1) and (2)), the absence of an express power in the latter indicates that no equivalent right of direct application by the party was intended.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Effect of rule 109(3) — Notification, not leave to appeal
The informal or written application to the Registrar under rule 109(3) is a requirement of notification that the dissatisfied person requires the matter to be referred to a judge; it is not analogous to the requirement of leave to appeal under Order 40 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rodrigues v The British High Commission (Civil Application 7 of 1988) [1988] UGSC 6 (1 December 1988)
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.