Wakilii

Tony Kato v Trucker Line International Co. Limited (Misc. Application No. 321 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 148 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file a taxation appeal out of time arising from taxation proceedings at Mengo Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Application for leave to file taxation appeal out of time dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 an application for leave to file a taxation appeal out of time. The applicant, who had been arrested and produced before court on a warrant of arrest, made part payment of the decretal sum without objecting to it on grounds of non-service. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay and was guilty of dilatory conduct, having conceded to the decree by making payment.

Outcome

Application for leave to file taxation appeal out of time dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant at Mengo Chief Magistrate's Court for recovery of UGX 4,200,000. After unsuccessful attempts at personal service, the respondent obtained an order for substituted service, which was effected through publication in the Monitor newspaper on 15 December 2022. The applicant failed to seek leave to appear and defend, and default judgment was entered on 17 February 2023. The respondent's bill of costs was taxed at UGX 5,381,000 on 18 May 2023. A warrant of arrest was issued and the applicant was produced before court, whereupon he agreed to partly satisfy the decree by paying UGX 5,000,000 towards the outstanding sum and UGX 2,000,000 to the court bailiff. The applicant then sought leave to file a taxation appeal out of time, claiming he was never served and that the bill of costs was excessively taxed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to file a taxation appeal out of time?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Requirement to Show Inability or Failure to Take Necessary Steps Within Prescribed Time
Time can only be extended if sufficient cause is shown. The sufficient cause must relate to the inability or failure to take the necessary step within the prescribed time. It does not relate to taking a wrong decision. If the applicant is found to be guilty of dilatory conduct, the time will not be extended.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Approbation and Reprobation — Effect of Part Payment of Decretal Sum
Where an applicant, upon arrest and production before court, concedes to the decretal sum by making part payment without objecting to it on grounds of non-service, the applicant cannot subsequently claim delay in filing an appeal on the basis that he was not aware of the proceedings. Such conduct amounts to dilatory conduct disentitling the applicant to an extension of time.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (9)

  • Muhindo Andrea & Another v Kahindo (HCMA No. 20 of 2023)
  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (CACA No. 67 of 2003)
  • Kabarole District Local Government Council v Gunn Paper Industries Ltd (Misc. Application No. 103 of 2022)
  • Boney M. Katatumba v Waheed Karim (SC Civil Application No. 27 of 2007)
  • Hikima Kyamanywa v Sajjabi Chris (CACA No. 1 of 2006)
  • Mugisha Vincent v Aston Peterson Kajara & 2 Others (Taxation Reference No. 313 of 2019)
  • Sseruwuge Charles v Kinoni Traders' Cooperative Savings Credit Society (HCMA No. 24 of 2020)
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobedde (SC Civil Application No. 6 of 1987)
  • Shanti v Hindocha and Others [1973] EA 207

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tony Kato v Trucker Line International Co. Limited (Misc. Application No. 321 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 148 (11 April 2025)
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.