Share
Karamira v Kampala City Council (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1933 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 18 (23 February 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] UGHCLD 18
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nkonge, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1933 of 2021
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nkonge, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1933 of 2021
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the application for enlargement of time to appeal was premature because the Registrar had not yet reassessed the awards as previously ordered in TA No. 008/2018. The applicant must await the final decision of the Registrar before seeking leave to appeal. Since the process directed by the court had not been completed, there was no final decision to appeal against. The court therefore declined to grant the application for enlargement of time and directed the tax master (Registrar) to comply with the previous order within 30 days. No order was made as to costs.
Court disposition
application dismissed as premature
Orders
- The tax master (Registrar) must comply with the order of the court in TA No. 008/2018 within 30 days.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Karamira Amos
ApplicantKampala Capital City Authority
Respondent Counsel: M/s Tumwebaze, Atugonza Kobusingye AdvocatesAmounts and remedies
- Advocate Client Bill of Costs Taxed (application): UGX 5,979,000
- Advocate Client Bill of Costs Taxed (main Suit): UGX 47,303,900
- Principal Sum Ordered in Civil Suit No. 590/2013: UGX 385,000
- Interest Rate Per Annum: 23
03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant is entitled to enlargement of time within which to appeal against the decision in TA No. 008/2018.
- 02
Whether the application is premature in light of the pending reassessment by the Registrar as previously ordered by the court.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant, unrepresented, seeks enlargement of time to appeal against the court's decision in TA No. 008/2018, arguing that he was advised to seek leave before appealing and that the appeal has prospects of success. He also notes that the Registrar has not yet reassessed the awards as previously directed by the court.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not file a reply within the time directed by the court and did not seek leave to file out of time. The application is therefore unopposed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order of the High Court in TA No. 008/2018
A party must comply with court orders and await the outcome of processes directed by the court before seeking further remedies.
- 02
General principles of civil procedure
Applications for enlargement of time must be premised on the existence of a decision capable of being appealed against.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the application for enlargement of time to appeal was premature because the Registrar had not yet reassessed the awards as previously ordered in TA No. 008/2018. The applicant must await the final decision of the Registrar before seeking leave to appeal. Since the process directed by the court had not been completed, there was no final decision to appeal against. The court therefore declined to grant the application for enlargement of time and directed the tax master (Registrar) to comply with the previous order within 30 days. No order was made as to costs.
Obiter and limits
- The respondent's failure to file a reply within the time directed and without leave rendered the application unopposed.
- The applicant should await the outcome of the Registrar's reassessment before seeking further remedies.
Court disposition
application dismissed as premature
- The tax master (Registrar) must comply with the order of the court in TA No. 008/2018 within 30 days.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(LAND DIVISION)
MISCELLANOUS APPLICATION NO. 1933 OF 2021
(ARISING FROM TAX APPEAL REF. NO.008 OF 2018)
(ARISING FROM MISC. APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2017)
(ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 590 OF 2013)
KARAMIRA AMOS ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
VERSUS
KAMPALA CAPITAL CITY AUTHORITY ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
BEFORE: LADY JUSTICE ALEXANDRA NKONGE RUGADYA
RULING:
Background to the application:
- The applicant, Mr. Karamira Amos was the successful party in *Civil Suit No.* 590/2013, wherein 15 court ordered KCCA to pay him 385,000/- at an interest rate of 23% per annum, from 20<sup>th</sup> day of July, 2012 until full payment, being the outstanding amount in accordance with the partial consent judgment dated 5<sup>th</sup> April 2012. - The respondent, *M/s Tumwebaze, Atugonza Kobusingye Advocates* who represented him in 20 the main suit filed MA No. 111/2017 where they sought the amount of Ug x.141, 952,000/= to be taxed, as the Advocate – client Bill of costs.
The amount was taxed at $Ug.x$ 5,979,000/= which the applicant was required to pay for the application; and $Ug.x$ 47,303,900/= for having represented him under the main suit.
He however appealed against that decision to this court, vide TA No. 008/2018. This court 25 upheld the decision to award the *Ug.x* 5,979,000/- for but allowed the appeal as regards the taxation of the main bill of costs, and referred the said matter back to the Registrar for reassessment, which however has never been done.
$\mathsf{S}$
Dissatisfied with the decision of this court, the applicant who is currently unrepresented filed, filed this application, MA No. 1933/2021, seeking enlargement of time within which to appeal against its decision, claiming among other things that the appeal has prospects of success.
As per the affidavit of service filed 29<sup>th</sup> November, 2021 the respondent firm was served on 19<sup>th</sup> November 2021, with the summons, order and written submissions in respect of this application. They acknowledged receipt of the court documents on that same day.
They however filed a reply on 16<sup>th</sup> December 2021, outside the time as court had on 12<sup>th</sup> November 2021 directed, without seeking prior leave of court to file their reply out of time.
In effect, this application is therefore unopposed.
10 Decision of Court:
$\mathsf{S}$
By his letter to court, dated 7th February 2022 in which the application explains the circumstances under which he had filed the application, two key issues emerge:
First, that he was advised that he had to seek leave of this court before bringing an appeal, against the decision of this court passed vide: TA No. 008/2018.
15 Secondly, that he still awaits the decision of the Registrar to re-assess the awards as this court had directed.
The application before this court is therefore premature as it awaits the final decision of the Registrar, as earlier directed.
The tax master must therefore comply with the order of this court, vide TA No. 008/2018, within 20 30 days.
No orders to costs.
Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya
JUDGE
25 23<sup>rd</sup> February, 2022
Detroved paid 2/2022
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.