POST JUDGEMENT REMEDIES IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT
- Kiiza John Paul
- 5 hours ago
- 3 min read
Facts
The Appellant, TASO (U) Ltd filed LDMA No. 002 of 2024 seeking leave to appeal a Labour Officer's award in an unlawful termination dispute. During proceedings, the Respondent successfully challenged four paragraphs of the Appellant's affidavit as argumentative and contrary to Order 19 Rule 3(1) CPR. The Court severed the paragraphs, ordered the Appellant to bear the costs of severance, but granted leave to appeal.
The Respondent then filed a Bill of costs(BOC) for the entire application, which the Registrar taxed at UGX 5,630,000/=. The Appellant challenged this as erroneous, arguing the Court's order limited costs strictly to the severing of the four paragraphs. The Appellant consequently filed Misc. Application No. 50 of 2026 under the Advocates Act, the Taxation of Costs Regulations, and the Civil Procedure Act, seeking to set aside the Taxing Officer's award.
The main ground of appeal was that;
The Registrar erred in principle by misinterpreting the Court's order, which limited costs strictly to the severing of paragraphs 5, 6, 8 and 10 of the affidavit in support of MA No. 002 of 2024, and not the entire application.
Submission of the parties
Appellant submitted
Counsel for the Appellant submitted that judicial interference is justified where a wrong principle was applied and a manifestly excessive figure reached, and that a Taxing Officer cannot tax beyond the court's orders. It was argued that the Court's order of 24 February 2026 limited costs strictly to severing paragraphs 5, 6, 8 and 10, yet the BOC and Certificate of Taxation awarded costs for the entire application. Counsel contended that the Registrar's failure to comply with the limited costs order rendered the taxation fundamentally flawed and invited the Court to set it aside.
Respondent submitted
Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the BOC was lawfully taxed and that judicial interference is warranted only on an error in principle, not quantum. Counsel argued that the correct process was followed, a pre-taxation meeting was held under Regulation 13A of SI 7/2018, and that the instruction fee of UGX 2,000,000/= was proposed by the Appellant's own counsel in compliance with item 9(1) of the 6th Schedule to SI 7/2018.
COURT FINDINGS
The Court reaffirmed its order in LDMA No. 002 of 2024, which limited costs strictly to severing paragraphs 5, 6, 8 and 10, holding that the Respondent's BOC for the entire application and the Registrar's consequent taxation were manifestly erroneous, stating that "by taxing the entire application, the Learned Registrar misread the orders of this Court." The Court further noted that under Order 19 Rule 3(2) CPR, the party filing an offending affidavit bears the costs of severance, reaffirming that severance reflects substantive justice under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, fortified by Lugayizi J.'s dictum in Italian Asphalt Haulage Ltd & Ors v Assist (U) Ltd that such an affidavit "should be left to stand, but to the detriment of the party filing it in terms of costs."
Read the decision below
Key takeaways
1. A Taxing Officer is strictly bound by the scope of the court's costs order. Where costs are limited to a specific act or specific portions of a pleading, the Taxing Officer has no jurisdiction to tax the costs of the entire application. Any taxation beyond the court's specific direction constitutes a misreading and is liable to be set aside.
2. Courts will interfere with a taxation award where the Taxing Officer has applied a wrong principle or arrived at a manifestly excessive figure — not merely where the amount in question seems high. The error in principle here was the Registrar's disregard of the court's limited costs direction.
3. Under Order 19 Rule 3(2) CPR, the party that files an affidavit containing argumentative or hearsay material bears the costs of severing the offending paragraphs. Severance is the court's preferred remedy over outright rejection of the affidavit, in keeping with Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which requires substantive justice.
4. Parties and practitioners must ensure that Bills of Costs are prepared in strict conformity with the court's costs order. Where a court's order is novel or unfamiliar to standard taxation practice, counsel should seek clarity from the trial judge rather than defaulting to a general BOC. Failure to comply with a specific costs order renders the entire taxation process fundamentally flawed.
5. Quantum of costs awarded for perusal of severed affidavit paragraphs should be guided by Item 10(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, which prescribes UGX 300,000/= for a memorandum of appeal or reply (inclusive of perusals).
.jpg)
