Walakira v Nakalanzi (Taxation Appeal No. 2 of 2019)
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 a bill of costs presented by law firms lacking proper notice of instructions and by an unqualified person not enrolled as an advocate is a nullity. Non-service of the taxation hearing notice and failure to hold a mandatory pre-taxation hearing are fatal irregularities denying a party the right to be heard. The taxation award was set aside and the respondent declared not entitled to costs.
Outcome
Taxation award set aside; respondent and her advocates declared not entitled to costs
Facts
The appellant instituted Civil Suit No. 281 of 2017 against the respondent at Rakai. The suit was dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent. The respondent filed a bill of costs which was initially struck out for non-compliance with drafting rules. A fresh bill of costs was filed by two law firms (Quest Advocates and T. Odeke & Co. Advocates) neither of which had filed a formal notice of change of advocates on the record. The bill of costs was not served on the appellant and was taxed ex parte without a pre-taxation hearing. The taxing master awarded costs. The law firm T. Odeke & Co. Advocates indicated that one Masawi Nicholas Wakubona, who was confirmed by the Chief Registrar not to be on the roll of advocates, had personal conduct of the suit and represented the respondent. The appellant appealed the taxation decision on multiple grounds including lack of locus, representation by an unqualified person, non-service, and excessive award.
Issues
- Whether the law firms representing the respondent at the taxation hearing had locus to file the bill of costs.
- Whether an unqualified person masquerading as an advocate was entitled to costs.
- What is the effect of non-service of bill of costs and failure to hold a pre-taxation hearing.
- Whether the award was unjustified or excessive.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Taxation decision in Civil Suit No. 281 of 2017 set aside.
- It is declared that neither the respondent nor her advocates are entitled to an award of costs.
- Costs of the appeal to the appellant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (13)
- Advocates Act Cap 267 s.62(1)
- Advocates Act Cap 267 s.64(1)
- Advocates Act Cap 267 s.65
- Advocates Act Cap 267 s.69
- Advocates (Taxation of Costs) Appeals and References Regulations SI 262-5 Rule 3(1)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.27
- Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations Regulation 2(1)
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations s.9
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations s.10(2)
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations s.13A
- Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Regulations 3rd Schedule Rule 1(3)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5
Cases cited (5)
- Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
- Thomas James Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] EA 492
- Musoke Mike and Mubiru Vincent v Kalumba James (Revision Cause No. 9 of 2019)
- Edison Kanyabware v Pastori Tumwebaze (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
- Auditor General v Ocip Moses and Others (Taxation Reference No. 89 of 2014)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.