Oddy v Sunrise Associated Auctioneers (Miscellaneous Application 152 of 1994) [1994] UGHC 67 (26 October 1994)

THE REPUBLIC CF UMANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

MISC. APPL. NO. 152 CF 1994

GODFREY ODDY BEIJUKA **EXPECTATION** APPELLANT VRS. $\cdots \cdots \cdots$

M/S SUNRISE ASSOCIATED AUCTIONEERS : : : : : : : : RESPONDENT BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE G. M. CKELLO

## RULING:

This ruling is in respect of a preliminary objection on a point of law raised at the beginning of the hearing of the application which was brought by notice of motion under $046_r$ . 8 of the civil procedure Rules. That application is actually an appeal against the decisions of the Deputy Registrar in a Taxation proceedings. Gounsel for the Respondent submitted in the preliminary objection that the appeal is incompetent for having been filed rutside the limitation period of seven days required by section $80$ (1) (0) of the Civil Procedure Act.

The back ground to the appeal is brief. The Applicant/Appellant one Godfrey Cddy Beijuka was the plaintiff in HCCS No. 823 of 1992. It would appear that in the course of the progress of that case, an order for injunction was obtained from court. The injunction order was given to Sunrise Associated Auctioneers to execute. They executed it. Upon that execution, Sunfise Associated Auctioneers filed their court Bailiff's Bill of cost. The Bill of cost was dated 27/5/93. It was taxed On 16/7/93 by the taxing master whr allowed the sum of shs. 997,925. Some how additional sum of shs. 288,000/= was again added to be paid to Sunrise Associated Auctioneer as disbursement.

$-.12.$

confirmed by paragraph 8 of^the affidavit in Reply which states in effect that the court Bailiff's Bill of cost wag taxed expanse. Purely if the Appellant was not informed of fcaxatiQn proceedings, h°w could he be expected to know^of the o^der^of the taxing master? Without knowledge,of the order, how could he appeal within the prescribed,period? In my view the failure to notify theuappellapt of the taxing proceeding, denied him^the knowledge of th\$ Deputy Registrar £rder. This pr°vided n-ord cause fo£ this court to admit the Otherwise invalid appeal filed rut of timg as v'.lid under the proviso Jr section 80 of the ci\ril procedure Act. The preliminary objection is therefore over-ruled.

o. M. CKSLL^ JUDGE.

26/10/9^