Zachary Olum & Anor v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 1 04)

Court of Appeal · [2004] UGCA 12 · 2004 Reference Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Taxation reference to a single Justice under Rule 109(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules from the decision of the taxing officer

Decision

Reference partly allowed; taxing officer's award varied and total bill of costs assessed at shs 30,585,000

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 taxation reference, the single Justice held that a higher court should not interfere with a taxing officer's discretion unless wrong principles were applied or the award was manifestly too low or excessive. Finding the petition novel and precedent-setting, the Justice increased the instruction fee from shs 10 million to shs 20 million, awarded shs 10 million for opposing the preliminary objections (for consistency), and allowed shs 47,500 for drawing up and copying the petition and affidavits. The total bill was assessed at shs 30,585,000, inclusive of fees for the taxation and the reference.

Facts

The applicants filed Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 1999 seeking declarations that section 15 (now 14) of the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act was unconstitutional. The petition was determined in their favour. They filed a bill of costs of shs 172,845,000 for taxation. After a delay of almost two years, the taxing officer awarded them shs 10,537,500, including shs 10,000,000 as instruction fee. The applicants, dissatisfied, filed this reference contending the instruction fee was manifestly inadequate, that fees for opposing the respondent's preliminary objections were wrongly disallowed, and that costs for drawing up and binding copies of the petition, affidavits and list of authorities were wrongly disallowed. The petition hearing had lasted one day, was not complicated, and cited few authorities, but the matter was novel and established a historical precedent.

Issues

Whether the instruction fee of shs 10,000,000 awarded by the taxing officer for the constitutional petition was manifestly inadequate.
Whether the taxing officer erred in disallowing instruction fees for opposing the respondent's preliminary objections.
Whether the taxing officer erred in disallowing costs for drawing up and binding copies of the petition, affidavits and list of authorities.

Orders

Instruction fee increased from shs 10,000,000 to shs 20,000,000.
Shs 10,000,000 awarded as instruction fee for opposing the preliminary objections.
Items for drawing up and copying the petition and affidavits allowed at shs 47,500.
Total bill of costs assessed at shs 30,585,000, inclusive of fees for appearing before the taxing officer and of the reference.

Key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion

A higher court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a taxing officer in assessing costs unless it is shown that wrong principles were followed or that the award was excessive or manifestly too low in the circumstances of the case.

Costs — Instruction Fee — Assessment Principles

There is no mathematical formula for calculating an instruction fee; the taxing officer must balance the successful party's reasonable reimbursement and adequate advocate remuneration against the public interest in keeping courts accessible, while maintaining consistency in awards and allowing for any fall in the value of money.

Costs — Consistency in Awards

Taxation awards should be consistent so that parties feel the taxing officer is acting fairly; where a comparable fee was allowed to another litigant for similar work, a like allowance should follow.

Costs — Constitutional Petitions — Absence of Specific Scale

Where there are no rules for determining costs in constitutional petitions, the taxing officer should be guided by the scale of costs in the existing rules to award a sum commensurate with the expenses reasonably incurred in preparing and copying the petition and supporting documents.

Legislation cited (5)

Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996 Rule 109(1)
Court of Appeal Rules 3rd Schedule paragraph 9(3)
Court of Appeal Rules 3rd Schedule paragraph 10
Modifications to the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1992, Directions 1996 (L.N. No. 4/96) Rule 4(2)
Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act s.15 (now 14)

Cases cited (9)

Paul Ssemogerere and Another v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2001)
P.K.Ssemogerere & Another v Attorney General CCA No.08/03
Fox Odoi and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 2003)
Premchand Raichand Ltd and Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and Others [1972] EA 162
Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11
Patrick Makumbi and Another v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
Nicholas Roussos v Gullan Hussein Habib Viran and Others (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1998)
Emmanuel Pinto v Athanasius Kivumbi (Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 1997)
Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1999)

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.