Wakilii

Umeme Limited v Businge (Taxation Appeal No. 23 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 273 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court taxation of costs following dismissal of preliminary objections
Decision
Appeal dismissed; taxation of costs by the Chief Magistrate upheld

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 a taxation appeal challenging costs awarded after dismissal of preliminary objections. The appeal was fatally defective because the supporting affidavit was sworn by an advocate who falsely claimed to be the appellant and failed to disclose authority to depose on behalf of the company. The Court held that the affidavit was alien to the appeal and contravened procedural requirements. On merits, the Court found no error in the taxation where the appellant was given opportunities for pre-taxation meetings but failed to attend, and the costs awarded were not manifestly excessive.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; taxation of costs by the Chief Magistrate upheld

Facts

The respondent sued the appellant in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kasese claiming compensation and damages. The appellant raised preliminary objections that the court lacked jurisdiction, the respondent had no locus standi, and the plaint disclosed no cause of action. The Chief Magistrate overruled these objections and awarded costs to the respondent. The respondent's bill of costs was taxed and allowed at UGX 3,304,800. The appellant appealed this taxation on grounds that there was no order for immediate taxation, no pre-taxation meeting was held, and the award was manifestly excessive. The affidavit supporting the appeal was sworn by Lubang Vincent, who stated he was the appellant but was in fact the appellant's advocate.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the chamber summons was defective for being sworn by a person who did not disclose proper authority to act on behalf of the appellant company.
  2. Whether the affidavit was defective for being sworn by the appellant's advocate in a contentious matter in contravention of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations.
  3. Whether the taxation of costs was improper for lack of a pre-taxation meeting.
  4. Whether the taxation was premature in the absence of an order for immediate taxation and payment of costs.
  5. Whether the taxed costs of UGX 3,304,800 were manifestly excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal wholly dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal to abide by the outcome of the suit in the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Affidavits — Affidavit sworn by advocate claiming to be the party — Failure to disclose authority to depose on behalf of company — Civil Procedure Rules Order 3
An affidavit sworn by an advocate who claims to be the party rather than disclosing that he deposes on behalf of the party is defective and will be rejected where the advocate does not disclose he is authorised to depose on behalf of a company and does not state the source of his information.
Evidence — Affidavits — Advocate as deponent in contentious matter — Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations Regulation 9
An advocate may swear an affidavit on behalf of a client in a contentious matter but such affidavit must be limited to facts the advocate can himself prove and that are within his knowledge; an affidavit containing deliberate falsehoods as to the deponent's identity will be rejected.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of costs — Pre-taxation meeting — Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations Regulation 13A
A pre-taxation meeting is mandatory before taxation of costs, but where a party is given opportunities to conduct the pre-taxation meeting and chooses not to attend, the party cannot complain on appeal that the meeting was not held.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of costs — Taxation of interlocutory costs before conclusion of suit — Immediate taxation
It is improper to tax multiple bills arising from interlocutory matters in the same suit unless there is an order for immediate taxation and payment of costs, and it is prudent to defer taxation of costs arising out of a suit to the conclusion of the suit, but it is not legally wrong to tax costs before conclusion.
Civil Procedure — Taxation appeals — Scope of appellate intervention — Manifestly excessive costs
On appeal from a taxation, the Judge will interfere with the taxing officer's exercise of discretion where there has been an error in principle or where the award is manifestly excessive as to be indicative of the exercise of a wrong principle; questions solely of quantum are matters the taxing officer is particularly fitted to deal with and the court will intervene only in exceptional circumstances.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Party and party costs — Principle of indemnity — Reasonably incurred costs
Party and party costs are awarded as an indemnity to compensate the successful litigant for expense reasonably incurred in the litigation, not as punishment; only costs reasonably incurred, not all necessary costs, may be recovered, and the successful party cannot indulge in a luxury of payment.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (10)

  • Thomas James Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] EA 492
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (S.C. Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Malkinson v Trim [2003] 2 All ER 356
  • Fullerton v Matsqui 74 BCLR (2d) 311
  • The Electoral Commission v Kidega Nabinson James (HCCA No. 076 of 2016)
  • Walakira Jacob v Nakalanzi Rose (Taxation Appeal No. 02 of 2019)
  • Homi Dara Adrinwala v Jeanne Hogan [1966] 1 EA 290
  • Auditor General v Ocip Moses (Taxation Reference No. 089 of 2014)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v B.O.U (S.C.C.A No. 8 of 1998)
  • M/s Simon Tendo Kabenge Advocates v M/s Mineral Access Systems (U) Ltd (H.C.M.A No. 565 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Umeme Limited v Businge (Taxation Appeal No. 23 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 273 (24 October 2022)
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.