[2017] UGHCEP 2

[2017] UGHCEP 2

Hon. Ababiku Jesca is not entitled to recover costs for all three law firms that represented her in the defence of Election Petition No. 2 of 2011, as the trial judge did not certify costs for more than one advocate. Only costs for one counsel are recoverable, and the Taxing Officer correctly taxed the consolidated bill of costs on that basis. The consent order on costs entered into by Ms. Eriyo Jesca Osuna with M/s Bwambale, Musede & Co. Advocates is null and void, as the firm had no instructions at the time of entering the consent. The Taxing Officer did not err in the taxation of the consolidated bill of costs, but erred in awarding instruction fees as part of costs for the day to Ms....

Citation
[2017] UGHCEP 2
Parties
Applicant: Hon. Ababiku Jesca; Respondent: Eriyo Jesca Osuna
Court
Election Petitions of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
6 July 2017
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 4 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
Applications by Hon. Ababiku Jesca (No. 4 and No. 37 of 2015) dismissed; application by Ms. Eriyo Jesca Osuna (No. 31 of 2015) partially upheld; each party to bear its own costs.
Judges
Stephen Mubiru, J
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Party and Party Costs, Advocate Client Relationship, Consent Orders, Procedural Irregularities
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Election Petitions Taxation of Costs Party and Party Costs Advocate Client Relationship Consent Orders Procedural Irregularities

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hon. Ababiku Jesca

Applicant

Eriyo Jesca Osuna

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hon. Ababiku Jesca is entitled to recover costs of all three law firms that represented her in her defence against High Court Election petition No. 2 of 2011.
  2. 2 Whether the consent order on costs entered into by Ms. Eriyo Jesca Osuna with M/s Bwambale, Musede & Co. is valid and binding on Hon. Ababiku Jesca.
  3. 3 Whether the Taxing Officer erred in law and fact regarding the manner in which he taxed the various party and party bills of costs presented to court for taxation by both parties.

Ratio Decidendi

Hon. Ababiku Jesca is not entitled to recover costs for all three law firms that represented her in the defence of Election Petition No. 2 of 2011, as the trial judge did not certify costs for more than one advocate. Only costs for one counsel are recoverable, and the Taxing Officer correctly taxed the consolidated bill of costs on that basis. The consent order on costs entered into by Ms. Eriyo Jesca Osuna with M/s Bwambale, Musede & Co. Advocates is null and void, as the firm had no instructions at the time of entering the consent. The Taxing Officer did not err in the taxation of the consolidated bill of costs, but erred in awarding instruction fees as part of costs for the day to Ms....

Court Disposition

Applications by Hon. Ababiku Jesca (No. 4 and No. 37 of 2015) dismissed; application by Ms. Eriyo Jesca Osuna (No. 31 of 2015) partially upheld; each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • Consent order on costs entered into by Ms. Eriyo Jesca Osuna with M/s Bwambale, Musede & Co. Advocates is set aside.
  • Award of shs. 4,691,000/= to Ms. Eriyo Jesca Osuna for costs of the day is set aside and bill of costs remitted to the Taxing Officer for reassessment.