[2017] UGHCCD 95

[2017] UGHCCD 95

The court found that although the applicant failed to provide proof of proper service of an itemised bill of costs as required by section 58(2) of The Advocates Act, this procedural lapse does not bar the court from granting an order for taxation of the advocate/client bill of costs. The statutory provisions governing the recovery and taxation of advocate/client costs are procedural rather than jurisdictional, and the absence of strict compliance with section 57 does not extinguish the advocate's right to seek taxation. The court distinguished between the commencement of a suit for recovery of costs, which is barred until statutory requirements are met, and an application for taxation,...

Citation
[2017] UGHCCD 95
Parties
Applicant: Peter Jogo Tabu; Respondent: Peter Langi
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
20 July 2017
Case Number
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0023 OF 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Order Authorising Taxation of Advocate/client Bill of Costs
Outcome
application allowed with costs to the applicant
Judges
Stephen Mubiru, J
Legal Topics
Advocate Client Costs, Taxation of Costs, Service of Bill of Costs, Procedural Requirements, Remuneration of Advocates
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Advocate Client Costs Taxation of Costs Service of Bill of Costs Procedural Requirements Remuneration of Advocates

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Jogo Tabu

Applicant

Peter Langi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Order Authorising Taxation of Advocate/client Bill of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order authorising taxation of an advocate/client bill of costs in the absence of a written fee agreement.
  2. 2 Whether proper service of an itemised bill of costs was effected on the respondent as required by law.
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with section 57 of The Advocates Act bars the court from ordering taxation of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicant failed to provide proof of proper service of an itemised bill of costs as required by section 58(2) of The Advocates Act, this procedural lapse does not bar the court from granting an order for taxation of the advocate/client bill of costs. The statutory provisions governing the recovery and taxation of advocate/client costs are procedural rather than jurisdictional, and the absence of strict compliance with section 57 does not extinguish the advocate's right to seek taxation. The court distinguished between the commencement of a suit for recovery of costs, which is barred until statutory requirements are met, and an application for taxation,...

Court Disposition

application allowed with costs to the applicant

Orders

  • The application for an order authorising taxation of the advocate/client bill of costs is allowed.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the applicant.