Crane Management & 16 Others v KACITA Limited (Taxation Appeal 2 of 2022) [2025] UGHCCD 41 (26 February 2025)

**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**

**CIVIL DIVISION**

**TAXATION APPEAL NO.0002 OF 2022**

**(Arising from Taxation Application No.062 0f 2021)**

**CRANE MANAGEMENT & 16 OTHERS::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANTS**

**VERSUS**

**KACITA LTD::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT**

**BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE SSEKAANA MUSA**

**RULING**

This is an application brought under Section 62(1) and Regulation 3 of the Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations, Order 51 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules for orders that;

1. *The award of Ugx 10,000,000/= to all the 10 applicant individual applicants as instruction fees under item 1 of the bill of costs in Taxation Application application No. 62 of 2021 is excessively low.* 2. *The instruction fees awarded by the Deputy Registrar, His Worship Jameson Karemani under item 1 of the bill of costs in Taxation Application No. 62 of 2021 be revised/reviewed upwards.* 3. *The ruling of the Deputy Registrar His Worship Jameson Karemani in Taxation Application No. 62 of 2021 be set aside for lack of legal basis and being unreasonable.* 4. *Costs of this Appeal be provided for.*

The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant Mark Edwin Bamulanga-Legal Administrator of the 1st applicant which briefly states as follows;

1. The applicants herein jointly filed Taxation application arising from HCCS No. 132 of 2021 against the respondents claiming 200,000,000/= as instruction fees. 2. The said instruction fees worth Ugx 20,000,000/= was claimed per applicant as instruction fees. 3. That on the 8th November 2021, the Taxing Master in his ruling awarded UGx 17,612,500 as costs to all applicants in HCCS NO. 132 of 2020. 4. The Learned Taxing Master in his ruling erred in law and fact when he ruled that the matter was not heard but dismissed for nonappearance, thereby awarding Ugx 10,000,000/= which represented UgX 1,000,000/= per applicant as instruction fees. 5. That the said award as instruction fees was excessively low and should be reviewed by this court.

The respondent filed an affidavit Samuel Kakande opposed the application and filed an affidavit in reply stating that;

1. That the applicants’ application is incurably defective since it was filed out of statutory time and ought to be dismissed with costs. 2. That the written Statement of defence filed by Ssemambo & Ssemambo Co. Advocates had the same content and therefore none of them disclosed peculiar content. 3. That there was no certificate of complexity obtained by counsel for the applicant. 4. That the applicants have not demonstrated any legal basis for increase in costs in respect of Taxation Application No. 62 of 2021.

The applicants were represented by *Counsel Lukwago David of Ssemambo and Ssemambo Advocates* while the respondent was represented by *M/s Silicon Advocates*.

The main issues for determination.

1. ***Whether the application/Appeal is competently before the court?*** 2. ***Whether the bill should be reviewed or revised for being excessive?***

**Determination**

***Whether the application/Appeal is competently before the court?***

The applicant filed the appeal out of time and contended that they received the certified typed record of proceedings from court on 24th March 2022. According to counsel, the appeal was submitted on 6th day of April and it was filed on 10th day of April 2022. To counsel the appeal was filed on ECMISS within 13 days after receipt of the record of proceedings.

The respondents’ counsel submitted that an appeal is a creature of statute and must be expressly given by statute. The taxation ruling from which this appeal arises was delivered by the Registrar on 8th November 2021. The applicants filed their appeal on 6th April 2022; 4 months after delivery of the ruling.

Counsel contended that obtaining certified record of proceedings is not a legal requirement when filing appeals under section 62 of the Advocates Act. The laws cited make no mention of acquiring certified record of proceedings as a precursor to filing this appeal.

***Analysis***

The effect of limitation law is that legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by law. Leave to appeal out of time is not granted to a party as a matter of course. The power is exercisable at the discretion of court and the court is expected to bear in mind that the rules of court are meant to be obeyed and as such there must be materials before the court upon which to base the exercise of discretion.

The applicant clearly filed the appeal out of time and the reasons advanced are that there was a covid and general lockdown during the period and that the record of proceedings was availed late in order to facilitate the lodgment of the appeal. Once statute barred always statute barred.

Section 62(1) of the Advocates Act provides;

*Any person affected by an order or decision of a taxing officer made under this Part of this Act or any other regulations made under this Part of this Act may Appeal within* ***thirty days*** *to a judge of the High Court who on that appeal may make any order that the taxing officer might have made.*

This time prescribed to lodge an appeal is set out in the statute and such time cannot be extended by stretch of imagination or ingenuity. The applicants seems to run away from the strict provisions of specific law (Advocates Act section 62) and have tried to evoke the general provisions of procedure, which provide that time shall not run until a party had duly received a record of proceedings.

Where no statutory powers exist to grant an application for extension of time, the court cannot hide under any equitable or inherent jurisdiction to exercise her powers to grant any remedy. The court cannot extend the time for doing an act when time is of essence unless there is a rule of law that empowers the court to do so. The sum effect of the above is that where limitation time is imposed under a statute, such period cannot be extended by any court unless there is a provision in the statute for such exercise of discretion.

The application is incompetently before the court because it was filed out of the stipulated time under the Advocates Act of 30 days and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

I so order.

***SSEKAANA MUSA***

***JUDGE***

***This ruling has been delivered by the Registrar this………. February 2025***