Nyakana v Luyiga (Miscellaneous Application 452 of 2023) [2023] UGHCLD 404 (23 November 2023)

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA INTHE HIGH COURT OFUGANDAAT KAMPAI. A LAND DIVISION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 452 OF 2023 ARISING FROM TAXATION APPLICATION NO. 222OF 2022 ARISING FROM EMA NO. 228 OF 2OI8 ARISNG FROM HCCS NO. OO29 OF 2016. GODFREY NIYAKANA APPLICANT VERSUS LUYIGADAYID RESPONDENT

## BEFORE HON. I-ADY JUSTICE FLAVIA NASSUNA MATOW RULING.

This matter was referted to the iudge by the deputy tegistrar aftet realising that she had no jurisdiction to entcrtain the application. At the time the same was referred to the judge parties had already filed their respective submissions.

Aftcr carefully srudying thc cntire record of proceedings I noted as follows:

- a) The applicant sceks to set aside thc expatte taxation ruling that was issued by the dcputy registrar of 25 / 1 / 2023 in relation to thc above matter. - b) The basis of the application is that the applicant was nevet served with court proccss befote the taxation application was heard. - c) The tespondent insisted that the applicant was duly scrved with court process through his advocates M/s. Barnabus Dyadi & Co Advocates-

- d) However, perusal of the record shows that at all material times applicant's advocates were M/s/ I(abega Bogezi & Bukenya Advocates. Indeed, these were the advocates who represented him up to the time the judgment was delivered. - e) 'I'here is nothing on record to show that the applicant ever withdrew instructions from M/s I(abcga,Bogezi & Bukenya advocates and instructed M/s. Barnabus D. I( Dyadi & Co. Advocates. - f) The circumstances undet which the respondent opted to serve M/s Barnabus D. K. Dyadi & Co. Adocates are not clear. - g) It is therefore true that the applicant was flot duly servcd with court process befote the court opted to proceed exparte against him. The applicant has thus shown sufficient cause as to why he did not attend court on the day the taxation application was heard. He was not served with court process, which denied him a right to be heard and thus occasioned an injustice to him. - h) F-or the above reasons, he said taxation ruling is accordingly hereby set aside and the matter should be heatd inter-party.

Each party shall bear their costs for this application.

DATED at Kampalathis. \*# Dayof <sup>23</sup>

ANASSUNAMATOVU JUDGE.