[2004] UGSC 52

[2004] UGSC 52

The court held that the bill of costs presented by Musoke & Co. Advocates was fundamentally flawed because it included claims for services rendered by the previous advocate, Mr. Muwayire-Nakana, without separating those items or annexing a separate bill as required by paragraph 16 of the 3rd Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules. The current advocate was not entitled to claim costs for work not done by her, and the bill as presented was not a true factual statement of services rendered. The taxing officer erred in overruling the applicant's objection and in failing to appreciate the scope of the objection and the requirements of the Rules. The proper procedure is for the current advocate to...

Citation
[2004] UGSC 52
Parties
Applicant: Haji Haruna Mulangwa; Respondent: Shariff Osman
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
29 August 2004
Case Number
Civil Reference 3 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Reference / Reference From Taxing Officer's Ruling
Outcome
application allowed; order of taxing officer set aside
Judges
Tsekooko, JSC
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Change of Advocates, Bill of Costs Format, Costs Award, Procedure on Taxation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Change of Advocates Bill of Costs Format Costs Award Procedure on Taxation

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haji Haruna Mulangwa

Applicant

Shariff Osman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Reference / Reference From Taxing Officer's Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the current advocate can include costs for work done by a previous advocate in the same bill of costs.
  2. 2 Whether the bill of costs presented by the current advocate contravenes paragraph 16 of the 3rd Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the taxing officer misdirected himself regarding the scope of the applicant's objection.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the bill of costs presented by Musoke & Co. Advocates was fundamentally flawed because it included claims for services rendered by the previous advocate, Mr. Muwayire-Nakana, without separating those items or annexing a separate bill as required by paragraph 16 of the 3rd Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules. The current advocate was not entitled to claim costs for work not done by her, and the bill as presented was not a true factual statement of services rendered. The taxing officer erred in overruling the applicant's objection and in failing to appreciate the scope of the objection and the requirements of the Rules. The proper procedure is for the current advocate to...

Court Disposition

application allowed; order of taxing officer set aside

Orders

  • The order of the taxing officer is set aside.
  • The objections raised by Mr. Tibaijuka before the taxing officer are upheld.