Wakilii

Sheikh Hussein Ssengendo v Hajat Nambi Lugwisa (Taxation Appeal No. 9 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 369 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of costs awarded in Civil Appeal No. 188 of 2023
Decision
Taxation ruling upheld; appeal dismissed

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

Held that taxation proceedings are judicial in nature and must adhere to principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard. However, a party who deliberately refuses to utilize the opportunity extended to them cannot later claim to have been denied a hearing. Where the appellant and counsel were duly served with the bill of costs, hearing notice, and invitation for pre-taxation meeting but counsel declined to attend and the appellant himself failed to appear, the Taxing Registrar was justified in proceeding ex parte. The right to be heard entails a corresponding duty to attend court when duly notified.

Outcome

Taxation ruling upheld; appeal dismissed

Facts

The appellant appealed against a taxation ruling awarding UGX 14,579,000 as costs to the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 188 of 2023, which had been dismissed with costs on 2 December 2024. The respondent filed a bill of costs on 12 February 2025, fixed for taxation on 26 June 2025. The appellant's counsel wrote to court on 26 June 2025 stating he was engaged in the Court of Appeal and that parties had not held a pre-taxation meeting. Counsel indicated on the taxation hearing notice that the date was not convenient and that an appeal had been filed in the Court of Appeal. Neither the appellant nor his counsel attended the taxation hearing. The Taxing Registrar proceeded ex parte and delivered a ruling on 10 July 2025. The appellant's counsel filed submissions on 10 July 2025, after the ruling had been delivered. The appellant challenged the taxation on grounds that he was denied the right to be heard and that the awards were excessive and unsupported.

Issues

  1. Whether the Learned Assistant Registrar erred in law and fact when he proceeded to tax the bill of costs and deliver a ruling in the absence of the appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Ruling and certificate of taxation issued by the Learned Registrar upheld.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Right to be Heard — Duty to Attend
Taxation proceedings are judicial in nature and must adhere to principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard. However, a party who deliberately refuses to utilize the opportunity extended to them cannot later claim to have been denied a hearing. The right to be heard entails a corresponding duty on the part of the party to attend court and actively participate when duly notified.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Ex Parte Proceedings — Justification
Where a party and counsel are duly served with a bill of costs, hearing notice, and invitation for a pre-taxation meeting, but counsel declines to attend and the party himself fails to appear, the Taxing Registrar is justified in proceeding ex parte. A letter seeking adjournment does not automatically stay proceedings; adjournments are granted at the court's discretion and must be based on sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Functus Officio — Late Submissions
Where a Taxing Registrar has delivered a ruling on taxation, the filing of submissions after the matter has been heard and determined is of no legal effect, as the court has become functus officio. Once a decision is delivered, the taxing officer has no jurisdiction to reopen or reconsider the matter unless properly moved under applicable review provisions.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Advocates Act Cap 295 s.62(1)
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and Reference) Regulations r.3(1)
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and Reference) Regulations r.3(2)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018
  • Constitutional (Integration of ICT into the Adjudication process for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2019

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sheikh_Hussein_Ssengendo_v_Hajat_Nambi_Lugwisa_(Taxation_Appeal_No._9_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_369_(14_October_2025)
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.