Wakilii

Tebajanga and 3 Otheers v Gukina [2023] UGSC 30

Supreme Court · 2023 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to the full Supreme Court from the ruling of a single Justice overruling preliminary objections to the competence of taxation references
Decision
Reference dismissed; the single Justice's ruling overruling the preliminary objections upheld and the consolidated taxation references directed to be heard on merit

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 Supreme Court dismissed a reference challenging a single Justice's refusal to strike out taxation references as time-barred. The Court held that Rule 106(5) prescribes the seven-day timeline only for the application for a reference, which may be made informally at taxation or in writing to the Registrar within seven days. The respondent's letters of 1 December 2021, filed five days after the taxation ruling, were valid applications for a reference. Rule 106 prescribes no timeline for filing the record of reference itself, which must instead be filed within a reasonable time. The references were therefore not out of time, and no objection arose as to service.

Outcome

Reference dismissed; the single Justice's ruling overruling the preliminary objections upheld and the consolidated taxation references directed to be heard on merit

Facts

The applicants obtained a taxation ruling in their favour on 26 November 2021 in respect of two bills of costs arising from the respondent's struck-out notice of appeal and dismissed application for leave to appeal out of time. Dissatisfied, the respondent's advocates wrote two letters to the Registrar dated 1 December 2021 expressing dissatisfaction with the taxation ruling, indicating the grounds for an intended reference to a single Justice, and requesting certified copies of the ruling and proceedings. The certified copies were availed on 21 December 2021, and the respondent filed the record of reference (Civil References Nos. 63 and 64 of 2021) on 23 December 2021. These were signed and sealed by the Registrar on 19 January 2022 and served on the applicants the same day. Before the single Justice, the applicants objected that the references were filed and served out of time. The single Justice overruled the objections, prompting this reference to the full Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's taxation references were filed out of time contrary to Rule 106(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the letters written to the Registrar on 1 December 2021 constituted applications for a reference within the meaning of Rule 106(5).
  3. Whether Rule 106(5) prescribes timelines for the filing of the reference itself, as distinct from the application for a reference.
  4. Whether any objection arose as to the time of service of the references.

Orders

  • The reference is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • Civil References Nos. 63 and 64 of 2021 are to be cause listed and heard immediately.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Application for Reference under Rule 106(5)
An application for a reference against a taxing officer's decision may be made to the Registrar informally at the time of taxation or in writing within seven days after that time; Rule 106(5) prescribes that seven-day limit only for the application for a reference, not for the reference itself.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Application for Reference distinguished from Record of Reference
A letter to the Registrar expressing dissatisfaction with a taxation ruling and an intention to refer the matter to a single Justice is an application for a reference, not the reference itself; the reference comprises the entire record of reference, including the certified proceedings, the taxation ruling, the application and the grounds.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Time for Filing Record of Reference
Rule 106 prescribes no time limit for filing the record of reference; where the application for a reference is filed within seven days, the reference is not out of time, and the record of reference need only be filed within a reasonable time.
Civil Procedure — Service of Documents — Rule 18
Rule 106(5) does not specify when service of a reference must be effected; where the references and hearing notices are signed, sealed and served on the parties on the same day, no objection can arise as to the time of service.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.106
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.106(5)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.106(6)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.18
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126

Cases cited (2)

  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1995)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tebajanga and 3 Otheers v Gukina [2023] UGSC 30 (12 September 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.