Kapeeka Coffee Works Limited v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Reference 21 of 2001)

Court of Appeal · [2001] UGCA 20 · 2001 Reference Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Reference under Rule 109 of the Court of Appeal Rules from a taxation ruling of the Taxing Officer

Decision

Reference dismissed; taxing officer's instruction fee of Shs. 8,000,000 upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

On a reference from a taxation ruling, the Court held that a Judge may interfere with a taxing officer's instruction fee only where the officer applied a wrong principle that substantially affected the quantum and upholding it would cause injustice. Because the appeal arose from a preliminary objection on whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action, the monetary claim was not relevant to assessment, and the order striking out the plaint was interlocutory as it did not finally dispose of the parties' rights. The taxing officer applied the correct principles, so the Shs. 8,000,000 instruction fee was upheld and the reference dismissed with costs.

Facts

The respondent sued the applicants and another before the Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (NPART) Tribunal to recover Shs. 838,030,582 being a non-performing asset assigned to it by Uganda Commercial Bank. The applicants raised a preliminary objection that the amended plaint disclosed no cause of action. The Tribunal overruled the objection, but on appeal the Court of Appeal upheld it in Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2000. Following that success, the applicants filed a bill of costs including an instruction fee of Shs. 83,900,000. The taxing officer taxed and allowed the instruction fee at Shs. 8,000,000, finding that the value of the subject matter could not be considered because the order striking out the plaint was merely interlocutory and the research undertaken was not necessitated by the complexity of the case. The applicants brought this reference contending the fee was manifestly inadequate and that the taxing officer misapplied the principles of taxation.

Issues

Whether the instruction fee of Shs. 8,000,000 allowed by the taxing officer was manifestly inadequate.
Whether the taxing officer correctly applied the principles of taxation, including disregarding the monetary value of the subject matter.
Whether the appellate order striking out the plaint was interlocutory or final for purposes of assessing instruction fee.

Orders

The reference is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
The amount allowed by the taxing officer as instruction fee is upheld.

Key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Instruction Fee — Principles for Assessment

The fee allowed for instructions to appeal is a sum the taxing officer considers reasonable having regard to the amount involved, the nature, importance and difficulty of the appeal, the interest of the parties, the general conduct of proceedings and all other relevant circumstances under paragraph 9(2) of the Third Schedule to the Court of Appeal Rules.

Costs — Taxation — Reference — Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion

A Judge on a reference may interfere with the amount allowed by a taxing officer for instruction fee only where satisfied that the officer applied a wrong principle, that the error substantially affected the quantum, and that upholding the amount would cause injustice to a party.

Costs — Taxation — Value of Subject Matter Irrelevant to Interlocutory Determination

Where an appeal arises from a preliminary objection that the plaint discloses no cause of action and the order made merely strikes out the plaint without disposing of liability, the monetary value of the claim is irrelevant to the assessment of instruction fee.

Orders — Interlocutory versus Final Orders — Bozson Test

Whether an order is final or interlocutory is determined by whether the order, as made, finally disposes of the rights of the parties; an order striking out a plaint that leaves the question of liability undetermined is interlocutory.

Legislation cited (3)

Court of Appeal Rules r.109(1), (3) and (5)
Court of Appeal Rules, Third Schedule paragraph 9(2)
Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute No. 11 of 1994

Cases cited (4)

Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11
Development Finance Company Ltd and 2 Others v Uganda Polybags (Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1998)
Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council [1903] 1 KB 547

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.