BRIEF FACTS : Appellant on behalf of  the late Yunusu miya and respondents avers  that they were instructed to represent the estate in the matters.As a result of the representation respondents filed an application for taxation of the advocates/ clients bill of costs ,the appellant contested the claims before the deputy registrar but the registrar over ruled him and ordered the bill of costs be taxed and that the appellant pays the costs personally .the appellant was dissatisfied and appealed to this court

ISSUES

WHETHER the learned Registrar erred when she ordered that the appellant personally pays costs for misc. app 201/2011

whether the learned Registrar erred when she disregarded the appellants contentions that the 1st respondent had accepted the sum of ug sh.3000000/- in full and final settlement of fees and are stopped from claiming any costs.

whether the learned registrar erred when she wrongly based her decisions on minutes the at were forged and     ignored original minutes

whether the learned trail registrar erred when she ruled that the advocates were licensed advocates during their representation of the estate

That the learned trail registrar wrongly struck out the affidavit of the appellants co administrator Ali miya dated 20th december  2011 and erred when she relied on the affidavit of the co administrator dated 9th JAN 2012

whether the learned trial registrar erred when she didn't consider the appellants contentions that he had not been served with the demand notice dated  10th august 2011 for a claim of ugx. 100014000/

CASE LAW

SECTION 62 of the advocates ACT and regulation 3 of the Advocates [taxation of costs] appeals and references  regulation sSI 267-5

SOLO David AND ANOR V PAGALI ABDU CIVIL APP.NO. 0027 OF 2009

SECTION 27 OF CPA ON DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE /REGISTRAR

WAMIHA SAW MILLING CO.LTD V WALONE TIMBER CO [1962] AC 101 definition of fraud as an act of dishonesty

jovelyn bamgahare v attorney general SCCA  no 28 of 1993 discloser of questions of facts by the plaintiff  he who asserts must affirm

section 101 of the evidence ACT

SECTION 57 OF THE ADVOCATES act

MAKULA INTER V CARDINAL NSUBUGA

Holding

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent