Wakilii

Roland Ndyomugyenyi v Nile Basin & Anor (Miscellaneous Appeal 28 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 377 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation ruling by Deputy Registrar concerning costs awarded in dismissed judicial review and injunction applications
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents

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 dismissed the taxation appeal. The appellant was properly served with the bill of costs and failed to participate in pre-taxation meetings despite repeated attempts by the respondents. The Deputy Registrar did not err in proceeding ex parte after the appellant opted not to attend the taxation hearing. The award of UGX 15,555,600 was reasonable considering the complexity of the judicial review proceedings and was taxed in accordance with the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The appellant filed a judicial review application and an application for temporary injunction concerning non-renewal of his employment contract with the 1st respondent. Both applications were dismissed by the High Court with costs to the respondents. The respondents filed a bill of costs for UGX 184,682,600 which the appellant was served with on 18 December 2020. The respondents made repeated attempts to conduct a pre-taxation meeting but the appellant's counsel did not respond or participate. On 14 April 2021, when taxation was scheduled, neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared. The Deputy Registrar proceeded to tax the bill ex parte and allowed costs of UGX 15,555,600. The appellant appealed the taxation ruling on grounds that he was not served, that mandatory pre-taxation did not occur, and that he was denied a fair hearing. The appellant also challenged the quantum as excessive.

Issues

  1. Whether the bill of costs, taxed bill and taxation ruling were properly served on the appellant.
  2. Whether the Deputy Registrar erred in proceeding with taxation without conducting a mandatory pre-taxation meeting.
  3. Whether the appellant was denied a fair hearing by not being given an opportunity to participate in and oppose the bill of costs.
  4. Whether the Deputy Registrar erred in taxing the respondent's bill not in accordance with the law.
  5. Whether the award of UGX 15,555,600 as costs in a judicial review application was manifestly harsh and excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Pre-Taxation Meetings — Effect of Non-Participation
Where counsel for one party makes repeated attempts to hold a pre-taxation meeting as required by Regulation 13A of the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations and the other party refuses to participate without justification, the taxing officer is entitled to proceed with taxation without the pre-taxation meeting.
Taxation of Costs — Ex Parte Taxation — Right to Fair Hearing
Where a party is given proper notice of a taxation hearing and fails to attend without sufficient cause, Regulation 54 of the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations permits the taxing officer to proceed ex parte, and such party cannot later claim denial of a fair hearing.
Affidavits in Reply — Time for Filing — Distinction from Written Statements of Defence
An affidavit in reply, being evidence rather than a pleading in stricto sensu, should be filed and served within a reasonable time before the hearing date sufficient to allow the adverse party a fair opportunity to respond. The 15-day timeline in Order 12 Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules for written statements of defence after scheduling conference does not automatically apply to affidavits in reply in taxation appeals.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Judicial Review Applications
In taxing instruction fees for judicial review applications under paragraph 7 of the 6th Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations, the taxing officer must consider the nature, importance, complexity and novelty of the matter, and the minimum fee of UGX 3,000,000 may be exceeded where the application was hotly contested with reference to multiple authorities including foreign judgments.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (22)

  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2015)
  • Springwood Capital Partners Ltd v Twed Consulting Company Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 746 of 2014)
  • Tumusiime Charles v Kasirye Fredrick (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 317 of 2014)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze [2005] 2 EA 86
  • Bitamisi Namudu v Rwabugando Godfrey (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2014)
  • Rashida Abdul Karim Hanali and Another v Suleiman Adrisi (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2017)
  • Grace Nakiyemba Nakate v Ssemugenyi Goefrey & 4 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 397 of 2016)
  • Gladys Senkubuge and Another v Kibirango Joyce (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1704 of 2019)
  • Fredrick James Jjunju and Another v Madhavan Group Ltd and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 688 of 2015)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Another v Edward Misisi (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11
  • Mbogo and Another v Shah (1968) EA 93
  • Halderkiimar Mohindra v Mathuradevi Mohinda (East African Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1952)
  • HK Shah & Another v Osoma Allu (1974) 14 EACA 25
  • MB Patel v R Gottifried (1963) 20 EACA 81
  • Hajji Nadin v Ben Kiwanuka (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1991)
  • Uganda National Bank v National Insurance and Another (Supreme Court of Uganda Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1995)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Dr Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 7 of 2016)
  • Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] EA 492
  • Steel Construction and Petroleum Engineering (E.A) Ltd v Uganda Sugar Factory Ltd [1970] EA 141

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Roland Ndyomugyenyi v Nile Basin & Anor (Miscellaneous Appeal 28 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 377 (13 November 2023)
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.