Wakilii

Talemwa v Segwanyi (Taxation Appeal 3 of 2019)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 339 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court bill of costs
Decision
Taxation appeal dismissed on preliminary objections without consideration of merits

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 a taxation appeal on preliminary grounds. The chamber summons were served almost two and a half years after issuance without an application for extension of time, violating Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Additionally, where taxation proceeded ex parte, the proper remedy was to apply to set aside the taxation under Order 9 Rule 27, not to appeal.

Outcome

Taxation appeal dismissed on preliminary objections without consideration of merits

Facts

The Respondent obtained judgment in Civil Suit No. 34 of 2009 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Masaka. He filed a bill of costs in 2014. The Applicant appealed the main judgment via High Court Civil Appeal No. 88 of 2013, which he lost. The bill of costs was eventually taxed in 2019 under S.I. 267-4, after S.I. No. 7 of 2018 had come into force. The Applicant filed a taxation appeal on 7 August 2019, challenging the use of the old regulations and claiming he was not notified of the taxation hearing. The chamber summons were not served on the Respondent until 4 May 2022, almost two and a half years after issuance. The taxation had proceeded ex parte against the Applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxation appeal was competent having been served almost two and a half years after issuance without leave of court.
  2. Whether the appellant's proper remedy was to apply to set aside the ex parte taxation rather than appeal.

Orders

  • The Application is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Time Limits — Mandatory Requirement to Serve Chamber Summons Within 21 Days
Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that service of summons be effected within twenty-one days from the date of issue, and this requirement is couched in mandatory language. Where summons have not been served within the prescribed time and no application for extension of time has been made, the court shall dismiss the suit under Order 5 Rule 1(3).
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Ex Parte Proceedings — Proper Remedy
Where taxation of costs has proceeded ex parte against a party, the proper remedy is to apply to the trial court to set aside the taxation under Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not to file an appeal against the taxation award.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Total (U) Ltd v Rosebel Twinamatsiko (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2019)
  • Western Uganda Cotton Ltd v Dr George Asaba & 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 353 of 2009)
  • Samuel Ssebowa Kagulire v Emmanuel Kasule Salongo (Miscellaneous Application No. 324 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Talemwa v Segwanyi (Taxation Appeal 3 of 2019) [2023] UGHC 339 (18 April 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.