[1936] EACA 133
The court held that the Registrar's refusal to tax the costs of the interlocutory application prior to the determination of the suit was correct and in accordance with established practice. The practice in the High Court is to have only one taxation of costs in an action, unless the Judge specifically directs...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1936] EACA 133
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Uchhrangrai Keshavrai Oza; Defendant: New India Assurance Co., Ltd
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- C.C. No. 115/1936
- Procedural Posture
- Review of Taxation / Appeal Against Registrar Ruling
- Outcome
- Registrar's ruling affirmed; interlocutory application costs not to be taxed prior to suit determination.
- Judges
- Sheridan CJ
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Interlocutory Applications, Practice and Procedure
- 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
Uchhrangrai Keshavrai Oza
Plaintiff
New India Assurance Co., Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Review of Taxation / Appeal Against Registrar Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs awarded for an interlocutory application may be taxed before the final determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the Registrar's refusal to tax interlocutory application costs prior to suit disposal was correct.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Registrar's refusal to tax the costs of the interlocutory application prior to the determination of the suit was correct and in accordance with established practice. The practice in the High Court is to have only one taxation of costs in an action, unless the Judge specifically directs immediate taxation and payment of interlocutory application costs. This approach is consistent with the practice in the King's Bench Division in England, as affirmed in Philipps v. Philipps (5 Q. B. D. 60). The court found no legal provision contradicting this practice and agreed with the Registrar's ruling. The costs awarded for the interlocutory application should be adjusted at...
Court Disposition
Registrar's ruling affirmed; interlocutory application costs not to be taxed prior to suit determination.
Orders
- No immediate order as to payment of interlocutory application costs.
- Costs agreed at Sh. 80 to be adjusted at the termination of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
## ORIGINAL CIVIL
### REVIEW OF TAXATION
## BEFORE SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J.
# UCHHRANGRAI KESHAVRAI OZA, Plaintiff
### NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD, Defendants C. C. No. 115/1936
Practice—Taxation—Costs of interlocutory application—Application for taxation before final decree.
The action, which was brought for an account of what was due to the plaintiff under a contract of agency, was instituted on 25-8-36. On 17-9-36 the defendants applied by Motion for an order directing $\mathbf{O}$ the plaintiff to furnish particulars and on this application an order was made for certain particulars to be furnished and the defendants were awarded the costs of the application. Immediately thereafter the defendants applied to the Registrar to tax the costs so awarded to them. The Registrar refused to tax the costs until the final disposal of the action, and the defendants appealed.
Held (27-11-36).—That the ruling of the Registrar refusing to tax the costs of the interlocutory application prior to the determination of the suit was correct. (Philipps v. Philipps (5 Q. B. D. 60) followed).
Hogan, for the defendants, referred to Rules of Court, Part XIII, Section III, rr. 35, 36: Wickham v. Taylor (35 Ch. D. 272).
Phadke, for the plaintiff, referred to Philipps v. Philipps (5. $O. B. D.60$ ).
JUDGMENT.-In the course of a taxation ruling the learned Registrar has stated that "the practice has always been in the High Court to have only one taxation of costs in an action, unless the Judge directs the immediate taxation and payment of the costs of an interlocutory application". I have been referred by the Registrar to extracts from the Office Order Book kept by the Deputy Registrar at Mombasa and two of these appear to me to bear out the correctness of what the Registrar has said as to the practice.
The first extract is "Costs of Chamber application are costs in any event and await the final disposal of suit", the second is "When one of the parties is allowed the costs of a Chamber application but the other party is successful in the main issue in the case a copy of the bill of costs of the Chamber application should be served on the other side and should be taxed at the same time as the costs of the main issue. No separate costs of taxation should be allowed on the Chamber application". It has not been shown to me that this practice is contrary to any provisions of law; on the contrary the practice would appear to be in conformity with the practice in force in the King's Bench Division in England: Philipps v. Philipps (5 Q. B. D. 60). I agree with the Registrar's ruling in declining to tax the bill of costs of the interlocutory application prior to the determination of the suit. Mr. Phadke will have the costs; as to whether these costs should be paid now or later adjusted on the termination of the suit Counsel are at liberty to mention the matter before me later. Meantime no order as to payment of these costs is made. Costs agreed at Sh. 80.
Note.—See also Abdi Nuri v. B. E. A. Corporation and another $(3$ E. A. L. R. 15) Ed.