David Bamuhiga v Junior Ndyanabangi (Revision Application No. 0009 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 365 (10 April 2025)

5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KABALE REVISION APPLICATION NO. 0009 OF 2023 (Arising from Land Case No. 0194 of 2012) (Formerly Land Case No. 0052 of 2009)

DAVID BAMUHIGA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT

VERSUS

JUNIOR NDYANABANGI::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE SAMUEL EMOKOR

15 RULING

The instant application is brought by Notice of Motion under Section 98 and 83 (c) of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 33 of the Judicature Act, Order 52, Rule 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Rule 26(1) of the Judicature (Court Bailiffs) Rules seeking the following orders;

- 20 a) That taxation Ruling and Orders from the Bailiff bill of costs taxed on 29/09/2023 in Land Case No. 0194 of 2012 (formerly Land Case No. 0052 of 2009) and allowed at UgX 8,450,000/= be revised and set aside for being manifestly irregular, harsh and unjustified. - b) The awards allowed on items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the said Bailiff bill of 25 costs be revised and or set aside.

c) The costs of the application be awarded to the Applicant.

The grounds upon which this application is premised interalia is that on the 25/08/2023 a Court Bailiff one Muhanguzi Richard T/A Murambi Auctioneers and High Court Bailiffs was instructed by the learned Magistrate Grade 1 at the 5 Chief Magistrates Court at Kabale to proceed to Nyangande Cell, Mwanjari Ward, Southern Division, Kabale Municipality to open an access road for the general public. That the said Bailiff thereafter filed a bill of costs for UgX 13,890,000/= and the Court proceeded to award him UgX 8,450,000/=

The application is supported by the affidavit of the Applicant who expounds on 10 the grounds of the application.

The Respondent filed an affidavit in reply to the application to which he avers briefly that he is not a party to the taxation that is being challenged and that the Respondent has nothing to do with the Court's appointed Bailiff as this application entirely relates with the Bailiff's bill of costs.

15 The Applicant rejoined to the same.

Representation.

At the commencement of this hearing the Applicant was represented by Messrs MAB Advocates but the Applicant later gave instructions to Messrs Oyango & Co. Advocates to take over his case.

20 The Respondent was represented by Messrs Nasiima Patience & Co. Advocates. The Counsel in this matter proceeded by way of written submissions.

Preliminary Points of Law.

Counsel for the Respondent raised two preliminary points of law submitting that the taxable bills of costs being challenged was never taxed by the Respondent who

25 has no bearing on a document that he has not authored. It is the contention of Counsel that the Respondent is not a proper party to these proceedings which is 5 an application against the bailiffs taxed bill of costs and that this is an injustice to the Respondent as it has led him into expenses of defending matters that he is not party to and prays that the instant application is struck out.

On the 2nd Preliminary Objection it is the argument of Counsel that the Applicant did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 62 of the Advocates Act

- 10 and Regulations 3 and 4 of the Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeal and References) Regulations which is to the effect that anyone who wishes to challenge the taxed bill of costs may do so by way of an appeal to the High Court. It is therefore Counsel's submission that the instant application is improperly before this Court and ought to be dismissed. - 15 The Applicant did not rejoin to the submissions of the Respondent despite proper timelines being given for the same. This fact notwithstanding the Applicant in his affidavit in rejoinder addressed the preliminary points of law under paragraphs 4 and 5 that I will reproduce verbatim.

"*4. That in rejoinder to paragraph 4, the Respondent is a party to the taxation I* 20 *am seeking to be revised because the same arises from Land Case No.0194 of 2023 in which the Respondent was a party according to the advice of my said lawyers. My lawyers have further advised me that it is a fact and trite that in revising the lower Court decision the parties must be maintained be it on appeal or revision and that it is common knowledge that even parties don't change even in the Bailiff's* 25 *bill of costs.*

5 *5. That in rejoinder to paragraph 5, the participation by the Applicant and his lawyer during taxation in the lower Court does not bar the Applicant from applying to this Court for revision as long as grounds for the same suffice.*

*And that the taxation was not by consent of parties but rather by the discretion of the taxing officer"*

10 Determination.

The Applicant has not rebutted the averments of the Respondent that neither he nor his Counsel were party to the taxation proceedings in Civil Suit No. 0194 of 2012.

The Applicant has also not rebutted the averments of the Respondent that he did 15 not originate the Bailiff's bill of costs taxed under the said Civil Suit 0194 of 2012. In effect the claims of the Respondent that he is a stranger to the taxation proceedings before the taxing master is uncontroverted.

The instant application for Revision is brought under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act that makes it mandatory under Sub Section (c) and (i) for parties

20 to be given the opportunity of being heard before an order of revision is made by this Court.

In the instant application the Bailiff whose bill was taxed in Civil Suit No. 0194 of 2012 isn't party to these proceedings and on this ground alone I would uphold the Preliminary Objection.

25 I also agree with the submissions of the Respondent's Counsel that the Applicant ought to have filed an appeal against the award of the taxing master in Civil Suit 5 No. 0194 of 2012. This is provided for under Rule 26 of the Judicature (Court Bailiff) Rules 2022. The instant application is therefore not amenable to Revision. The second Preliminary Objection is upheld.

The instant Applicant is a layman who put his trust on the guidance given to him by Counsel and justice will not be served if he is condemned in costs for taking

10 their advice. I will in the interest of justice refrain from further subjecting the Applicant to financial obligations.

In the result the Preliminary Points of Law are sustained. The instant application is hereby struck out for being incompetent with no orders as to costs.

Before me,

………………………..…………… Samuel Emokor Judge 10/04/2025

20