Wakilii

The registered trustees of Soroti Catholic Diocese v Imalingat (Taxation Application 83 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 282 · 2023 Preliminary Objection Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection in taxation proceedings arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2022
Decision
Irregularly extracted order expunged; respondent directed to extract fresh order in accordance with the law; taxation proceedings to continue

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 court held that the extracted order dated 28 September 2022 was not forged but was irregularly extracted because the successful party failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Order 21 Rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires service of the draft order on the other party for approval before submission to the registrar. The court expunged the irregularly extracted order and directed the respondent to extract a fresh order in accordance with the law. The preliminary objection succeeded in part, with 50% costs awarded to the applicant.

Outcome

Irregularly extracted order expunged; respondent directed to extract fresh order in accordance with the law; taxation proceedings to continue

Facts

The applicant raised a preliminary objection to the taxation of the respondent's Bill of Costs, alleging that the extracted court order dated 28 September 2022 was forged or illegal. The applicant contended that the second order in the extracted document contained wording that differed from the ruling delivered on 14 July 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2022. Specifically, the extracted order stated that the application was unmeritorious, whereas the ruling stated that the court had no jurisdiction to determine the merit of the application. The Deputy Registrar referred the matter to the judge to determine the issue of illegality. The respondent opposed the objection, arguing that it was a delaying tactic and that the extracted order was properly endorsed by the court.

Issues

  1. Whether the extracted court order dated 28 September 2022 was forged or illegal.
  2. Whether the Bill of Costs filed by the respondent should be dismissed on grounds of illegality.
  3. Whether the extracted order complied with the procedural requirements under Order 21 Rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection raised by counsel for the applicant succeeds in part.
  • The extracted order dated 28 September 2022 is expunged from the court record.
  • The successful party is directed to extract the required order in accordance with the law.
  • The orders of the Honourable Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2022 remain accurate and valid.
  • The prayer to dismiss the taxation application in HCMA 83 of 2022 is disallowed.
  • 50% costs awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extraction of Orders — Mandatory Procedure under Order 21 Rule 7(2)
Under Order 21 Rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, it is the duty of the successful party to prepare a draft decree or order and submit it for the approval of the other parties before submission to the registrar for signing and sealing. Failure to follow this mandatory procedure renders the extracted order irregular.
Civil Procedure — Forgery of Court Orders — Definition and Standard of Proof
Forgery of a judicial document requires proof that the document was falsely made or materially altered with intent to defraud, or that a signature was made without the person's consent. Allegations of forgery are serious and carry both civil and criminal consequences. A document signed by a lawfully authorised judicial officer who does not disown the signature does not meet the standard of forgery, even if the content varies from the ruling.
Civil Procedure — Irregularly Extracted Orders — Court's Power to Expunge
Where a court order is irregularly extracted without following the prescribed procedure, the court has the power to expunge the irregular order from the record and direct the successful party to extract a fresh order in accordance with the law. The irregularity in extraction does not invalidate the underlying orders made by the court in the ruling.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (4)

  • Coffee Marketing Board Limited v Bunkyekye Coffee Factory (U) Ltd [1996] HCB
  • Baigumamu v Uganda [1973] EALR 26
  • Azolozo v Republic [1986-1989] EA 16
  • Uganda v Lwamafa Jimmy and Three Others (HCT-00-ACD-SC-NO. 0003 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The registered trustees of Soroti Catholic Diocese v Imalingat (Taxation Application 83 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 282 (13 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.