Wakilii

Tinka v Butera and Another (Miscellaneous Application 39 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 429 · 2024 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside taxation ruling arising from miscellaneous application
Decision
Taxation ruling varied to exclude costs for matters without cost orders; reduced amount affirmed

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 taxation ruling was partially valid. Items 1-7 of the bill of costs relating to matters not yet heard (M.A. No. 144 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2019) were wrongly included, as no order for costs had been made in those matters. Under s.33 of the Judicature Act, the Court varied the taxation by disallowing items 1-7, reducing the total allowed costs from UGX 19,898,069 to UGX 12,556,350.

Outcome

Taxation ruling varied to exclude costs for matters without cost orders; reduced amount affirmed

Facts

The Applicant had filed M.A. No. 145 of 2019 for an interim stay of execution of 62 heads of cattle. The High Court delivered a ruling on 4 August 2020 in favour of the Respondents. The Respondents filed a bill of costs which was taxed inter-party by the Registrar on 29 April 2021. The bill included items relating to M.A. No. 144 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2019, neither of which had been heard or determined, and for which no costs order had been made. The Applicant filed the present application on 29 April 2021 to set aside the taxation ruling, arguing that items 1-7 should not have been included because they related to matters still pending. The Respondents conceded that items 1-7 concerned the unheard matters but contended that items 8-88 properly concerned M.A. No. 145 of 2019.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application is competent before the Court.
  2. Whether this is a proper case for setting aside the taxation ruling.

Orders

  • Application partially allowed.
  • Taxation ruling varied by taxing off UGX 7,341,719 for items 1-7.
  • Final allowed amount of UGX 12,556,350 confirmed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Competence of Bill of Costs
A bill of costs must be itemised, and each item is taxed on its own merit. The inclusion of items relating to matters for which no cost order has been made does not vitiate the entire bill but renders those specific items liable to be taxed off.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Variation of Taxation Ruling
Under s.33 of the Judicature Act, the High Court has inherent power to correct or rectify errors in a taxation ruling so that matters in controversy may be completely and finally determined and multiplicity of proceedings avoided.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Uganda Telecom v Warid Telecom (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tinka v Butera and Another (Miscellaneous Application 39 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 429 (26 April 2024)
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.