Serwada v TSMP (U) Limited (Civil Revision 19 of 2022)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court held that while the Chief Magistrate was clothed with jurisdiction to conduct taxation of the Bill of Costs, he acted illegally and with material irregularity by dismissing the Bill of Costs under Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Taxation of advocates' bills is governed by the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI 123 of 1982, specifically Rules 11 and 54, which empower a taxing officer to proceed ex parte in the absence of a party rather than dismiss the Bill. The application for revision was granted, the dismissal order vacated, and taxation reinstated.

Outcome

Application for revision granted; Bill of Costs taxation reinstated to be conducted before Chief Magistrate Jinja

Facts

The Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 37 of 2017 against the Applicant alleging trespass. After four years of litigation, the suit was dismissed on 3 March 2021 for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction by the Chief Magistrate. The Applicant filed a Bill of Costs on 24 August 2021 for UGX 50,379,000 for taxation. On 6 April 2022, the Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Bill covered two counsel firms without proper certification under Rule 41 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations. The Chief Magistrate upheld the objection on 3 May 2022 and struck out the Bill as improper. Subsequently, a taxation hearing was scheduled for 23 November 2022. When neither the Applicant nor his lawyers appeared, the Chief Magistrate dismissed the Bill of Costs under Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules for non-appearance. The Applicant then filed this application for revision contending the dismissal was illegal and irregular.

Issues

1. Whether this is a proper case for revision of the decision of the Taxing Master?
2. Whether the Chief Magistrate acted illegally or with material irregularity in dismissing the Bill of Costs under Order 9 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules?
3. Whether the Chief Magistrate exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law when he dismissed the Bill of Costs?

Orders

• Application for revision GRANTED.
• The taxation for Civil Suit No. 37 of 2017 is reinstated and shall be taxed before the current Chief Magistrate Jinja.
• Counsel for the Applicant to comply with the earlier Ruling and file his own Bill of Costs and annex the Bill of Costs of the first Advocate.
• The file is returned to the Chief Magistrate Court for the Bill of Costs so filed to be presented again and taxed in accordance with the law.
• Costs of this Application are awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (20)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.83
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.27
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.2(x)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.2(q)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.2(t)
• Judicature Act s.17
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Art.126(2)(e)
• Advocates Act Cap 267 s.77
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI 123 of 1982 Reg.11
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI 123 of 1982 Reg.54
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI 123 of 1982 Reg.41
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI 123 of 1982 Reg.2
• Magistrates Courts Act Cap 16 s.207(5)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 22
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 23
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 Rule 3(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 21 Rule 8
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 44
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52

Cases cited (15)

• Mabalaganya v Sanga [2005] EA 152
• Besigye v Museveni and Electoral Commission (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
• Jobconnect (U) Ltd v DFCU Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 627 of 2014)
• Kaingana v Dabou Boubou [1986] HCB 19
• Olegum Joseph v Arono Betty (Civil Revision No. 13 of 2011)
• Sentamu Jamilu and Others v Sekatawa Haruna (Civil Revision No. 21 of 2018)
• Amir Khan v Sheo Baksh Singh [1885] 11 CA 16
• Candiru v Amandua and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 19 of 2014)
• Premchand Raichand Ltd and Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and Others [1972] EA 162
• Akisoferi Ogola v Akika Othieno and Another (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1999)
• D.L.F Housing and Construction Co. Ltd v Sarup Singh [1996] 3 SCC 807
• Horizon Coaches v Edward Rurangaranga and Mbarara Municipal Council (SCCA No. 18 of 2009)
• Francis Butagira v Deborah Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1989)
• Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Company [1981] HCB 35
• Sutherland v Canada (Attorney General) [2008] BCCA 27

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Kobugabe and Others v Birungi (HCT-01-LD-CR-0002-2025) followed
• Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd v Biretwa and Another (HCT-01-LD-CR-0004-2025) followed

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