[2023] UGHCFD 114

[2023] UGHCFD 114

The court found that the appellant failed to serve the appeal within the mandatory 21-day period as required by Order 5 Rule 1(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Regulation 10 of the Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations. No application for extension of time was made, and no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] UGHCFD 114
Parties
Appellant: Paul Bitarabeho Katabazi; Respondent: Chrispa Bitarabeho; Respondent: Nice Bitarabeho Kasango
Court
HC: Family Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
6 October 2023
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
appeal dismissed on preliminary objection
Judges
Katunguka Kitariisibwa, J
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Instruction Fees, Service of Process, Estate Administration
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Family and Children Taxation of Costs Instruction Fees Service of Process Estate Administration

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Bitarabeho Katabazi

Appellant

Chrispa Bitarabeho

Respondent

Nice Bitarabeho Kasango

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal was served within the time prescribed by law.
  2. 2 Whether failure to serve the appeal within the stipulated period renders the appeal incompetent.
  3. 3 Whether the instruction fees awarded by the Taxing Master were excessive and contrary to legal principles.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to serve the appeal within the mandatory 21-day period as required by Order 5 Rule 1(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Regulation 10 of the Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations. No application for extension of time was made, and no affidavit of service was filed. The appellant's argument that the delay was due to a court error was unsupported by any affidavit from the judicial officer, and the burden of proof was not discharged. The court held that strict compliance with statutory time limits is required, and failure to serve within time renders the appeal incompetent. Consequently, the preliminary objection...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed on preliminary objection

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The application is dismissed with costs.