Wakilii

Warid Telecom Uganda and Another v Isomgoma (Miscellaneous Application No. 34 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 39 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex-parte taxation ruling arising from taxation of a bill of costs
Decision
Ex-parte taxation ruling set aside; matter remitted for fresh inter-party taxation

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 held that the applicants were denied their right to a fair hearing when the Deputy Registrar conducted taxation ex-parte after serving the hearing notice on the applicants' counsel in Kampala at 1:30pm for a 9:00am hearing the next day in Fort Portal. The time between service and hearing was too short to afford the applicants adequate opportunity to appear. The court set aside the ex-parte taxation ruling and certificate and ordered a fresh inter-party taxation.

Outcome

Ex-parte taxation ruling set aside; matter remitted for fresh inter-party taxation

Facts

The applicants and respondent conducted a pre-taxation meeting on 27 October 2021 and agreed on most items in a bill of costs totalling UGX 2,200,000, leaving only instruction fees and VAT for taxation before the Deputy Registrar. The matter was adjourned multiple times. On 5 July 2022, the applicants' lawyers in Kampala were served at 1:30pm with a hearing notice for taxation scheduled for 6 July 2022 at 9:00am in Fort Portal. The applicants' counsel received the notice in protest and wrote to court indicating inability to attend due to the short notice and other scheduled cases. On 6 July 2022, only the respondent's counsel appeared and the Deputy Registrar proceeded to tax the bill ex-parte, allowing UGX 4,510,000. The applicants only learned of the ruling on 20 September 2022 when served with a notice to show cause why execution should not issue. They filed this application on 26 September 2022 to set aside the ex-parte ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant was given a right to a fair hearing.
  2. Whether the decision of the Taxing Officer dated 6th July 2022 should be set aside.

Orders

  • A fresh taxation be conducted between the Applicants and the Respondent inter-party.
  • The decision of the Assistant Registrar dated 6th July 2022 and the certificate of taxation are hereby set aside.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2022 is overtaken by events and stands dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Right to Fair Hearing — Service of Hearing Notice
The right to a fair hearing is a fundamental right protected under Article 28(1) of the Constitution and must be respected in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings including consideration of a bill of costs. Service of a taxation hearing notice on counsel in Kampala at 1:30pm for a 9:00am hearing the next day in Fort Portal does not afford adequate time to prepare and appear, and constitutes a denial of the right to be heard.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Ex-Parte Taxation — Duty of Taxing Officer
Where a taxing officer issues a hearing notice indicating an intention to give parties a chance to be heard, the officer must record a decision whether to proceed ex-parte and satisfy himself as to whether the absent party was properly served before conducting taxation in the party's absence.
Civil Procedure — Appeals from Taxing Officer — Time Limits — Knowledge of Decision
Where an applicant only learns of a taxing officer's ruling when served with a notice to show cause why execution should not issue, and there is no evidence that the ruling was served soon after delivery, an application to set aside the ruling filed promptly after the applicant learned of it should be entertained in the interests of substantive justice notwithstanding that it was filed outside the 30-day period from the date of the ruling.
Civil Procedure — Appeals from Taxing Officer — Grounds for Interference
A High Court should interfere with a taxing officer's decision where there has been an error in principle, including denial of the right to be heard, but should not do so on questions solely of quantum as that is an area where the taxing officer is more experienced.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (3)

  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani and Nasmudin Habib Virani (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
  • Agnes Lyazi (Administrator of the Estate of the late Lyazi) v Lydia Sempa and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 02 of 2012)
  • Carolyn Turyatemba and 4 Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Warid Telecom Uganda and Another v Isomgoma (Miscellaneous Application No. 34 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 39 (17 February 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.