[2002] UGHC 139
The court found that the Registrar had properly exercised discretion in awarding the sum of Shs. 6,996,600/= to the auctioneer. The expenses claimed, including those for police, private security, transport, and valuation, were deemed necessary and reasonable in the context of executing a writ against a hotel...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] UGHC 139
- Parties
- Applicant: M/S Lumweno & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Simba Speed Auctioneers
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- MISC. APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Appeal From Taxation Decision
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Judges
- Okumu Wengi, J
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Execution Proceedings, Assessment of Auctioneer Fees
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
M/S Lumweno & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Simba Speed Auctioneers
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Appeal From Taxation Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Registrar erred in principle in awarding the sum of Shs. 6,996,600/= to the auctioneer as taxed costs.
- 2 Whether the expenses claimed by the auctioneer, including police, security, transport, and valuation fees, were properly allowable in taxation.
- 3 Whether the taxed costs were manifestly excessive or irregular.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Registrar had properly exercised discretion in awarding the sum of Shs. 6,996,600/= to the auctioneer. The expenses claimed, including those for police, private security, transport, and valuation, were deemed necessary and reasonable in the context of executing a writ against a hotel property. There was no evidence of double payment or improper allowance of costs. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of principle, irregularity, or manifest excess in the Registrar's award. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar's decision was upheld as reasonable and in accordance with the law.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- The applicant shall pay the respondent the sum of Shs. 6,996,600/=.
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
### IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA MISC. APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2001 (From Civil Suit No. 1401 of 2000)
# M/S LUMWENO & CO. ADVOCATES APPLICANT
### VERSUS
# SIMBA SPEED AUCTIONEERS RESPONDENT
## BEFORE ; THE HON. MR. JUSTICE OKUMU WENGI.
## JUD G M E N T
The appellant a firm of advocates opposes the award in taxation made by the Registrar in this matter in the sum of Shs. 6,996,600/=. The sum that the auctioneer was instructed to recover by attachment was Shs. 55 million costs awarded/agreed on between the advocate and the Judgment Debtor. The auctioneer proceeded to Rock Hotel Tororo from Kampala, attached the Hotel moveables and brought them to Kampala. He has detailed his activities in his affidavit in reply filed in court on 5th December 2001 to oppose this appeal which sets out nine grounds.
30 35 40 Firstly the appellant objects to the sums of Shs. 350,000/= said to have been spent on the Police in the process of execution. I am not impressed by the argument that expenditure on the Policemen is automatically excluded simply because their public duty is free. The amount spent must be necessary expenses which involved moving 40 labourers, 10 private security guards to proceed and remove items from a established Hotel guarded by armed security men. I do not see the reason for interfering with the Registrars allowing this item and the money spent on private security guards used by the auctioneer/bailiff. Travel by the bailiffto Mbale Police Regional Office and any expenses involved was equally necessary as execution process had to secure the notification of the Police authorities in the Regional Offices. The items of transport expenses in the spectacular execution exercise which left the hotel closed was also necessary as indeed the bailiff transported the attached items from Tororo to Kampala for safe
i certify 'DEPUTE ^-correct registrar
**I**
**I**
**I**
**I**
**I**
custody in the stores of Peacock Paints in Kampala. The sums claimed are not in any away excessive. Similarly the fact that a valuer was paid Shs. 300,000/= by the advocate for "valuation work" does not exclude the bailiff paying the valuer a fee for a valuation report whether separate or in addition to the deposit if at all provided by the advocate. There was also no evidence of this payment before the Registrar except a statement from the Bar to the effect that the valuer had been paid. Finally the bailiffs fees is by no means excessive simply because the applicant paid the advertising and storage charges to third party.
In short going by the record I am unable to perceive an error of principle and any that could have resulted in the Registrar's order and award being flowed and manifestly excessive, as to have diluted her discretion and or led to her having disregarded principles of taxation. On the other hand it is amply demonstrated that the costs awarded were indeed reasonable in the circumstances of this case. I would therefore decline to interfere with the award which is not manifestly excessive, contains no error of principle or irregularity nor does it betray any error oftaxation principle. On the contrary the learned Registrar came to a reasonable decision. In saying this I must dismiss this appeal with costs.
**2**
JUDGE 22/01/2002.
**5**
**10**
**15**
**20**
**25**
**I**
**I I**
**I**
**I**
**I**
#### **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
#### **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**
#### **MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2001**
#### **ARRISING OUT GF CIVIL SUIT NO. 1401 OF 2000**
**M/S LUMWENO & CO ADVOCATES APPLICANT**
#### **VERSUS**
#### **SIMBA SPEED AUCTIONEERS RESPONDENT**
#### **ORDER**
This matter coming up for final disposal before His Worship Precious Ngabirano in the presence of Mr Lumweno for the applicant;
#### **IT IS HEREBY ORDERED** that:-
(I) The Applicant pays the Respondent the sum of Shs. 6,996,600/=.
(II) The above mentioned application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
.. DAY 2002 GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT THIS .c/r OF
**REGISTRAR**
**EXTRACTED BY: M/S LUMWENO & CO ADVOCATES Ist FLOOR PLOT 12 WILLIAM STREET OPP. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (U) LTD P. O BOX 2938 KAMPALA.**