The Microfinance Support Centre v Kasese Hospital & Another (Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2024)
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 an appeal against a taxation of costs filed under Section 62(1) of the Advocates Act must be brought within 30 days of the taxing officer's decision. The Christmas vacation period exemption under Order 51 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies only to time periods prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules themselves, not to statutory time limits established by other Acts. Since the appeal was filed 55 days after the Certificate of Taxation was issued, it was incurably time-barred and dismissed.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as time-barred
Facts
The Appellant filed Originating Summons No. 079 of 2023 seeking an order of vacant possession against the Respondents for default of rental obligations. The Originating Summons were later withdrawn with costs to the Respondents. On 30 November 2023, the bill of costs was taxed and allowed at UGX 16,277,500. The Appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application on 25 January 2024 seeking to revise the taxed costs downwards, arguing they were excessive and not in line with the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations. The Respondent contended that the appeal was time-barred, having been filed 55 days after the Certificate of Taxation was issued, exceeding the 30-day statutory limit under Section 62(1) of the Advocates Act. The Appellant argued that the Christmas vacation period between 24 December 2023 and 15 January 2024 should be excluded from the computation of time under Order 51 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Issues
- Whether the application is time-barred under Section 62(1) of the Advocates Act.
- Whether the taxation in issue was founded on the consent of the parties before the Taxing Master.
- Whether the costs taxed in Taxation Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 2023 are lawful.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Advocates Act s.62
- Advocates Act s.62(1)
- Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations regulation 2
- Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations regulation 57
- Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations 6th Schedule paragraph 6
- Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations 6th Schedule paragraph 9(2)
- Civil Procedure Act s.67(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 51 Rule 4
- Interpretation Act s.34(1)
Cases cited (3)
- Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1999)
- Makumbi and Another v Sole Electrics (1990-1994) 1 EA 306
- Mayers and Another v Hamilton and Others (1975) 1 EA 13
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.