Uganda Electricity Board (in Liquidation) v Paul Nyamarere (Civil Reference No. 30 of 2011)

Court of Appeal · [2011] UGCA 19 · 2011 Reference Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Reference to a single judge against the taxation ruling of the Registrar (Taxing Master) of the Court of Appeal

Decision

Reference dismissed; Taxing Master's award of instruction fees of Ug.shs.259,737,500 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 against the Registrar's taxation ruling, the Court of Appeal held that the subject matter of the appeal had a specific and certain monetary value (Ug.shs.39 billion), being the sum claimed in the High Court suit that was reinstated on appeal, which properly guided the assessment of instruction fees under item 9(2) of the Third Schedule. The Court found the Taxing Master had not acted on any wrong principle and that the taxed costs of Ug.shs.259,737,500 were a fair award. The applicant failed to prove the claim lacked value. The reference was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The respondent, Paul Nyamarere, was the successful appellant in Civil Appeal No.55 of 2008 against Uganda Electricity Board (in Liquidation), and was awarded costs. The underlying dispute arose from a High Court suit in which a substantial sum was claimed on behalf of others. The High Court had given judgment to the respondent and then nullified its own judgment, prompting the appeal; on appeal the High Court judgment and award were reinstated. On 27 January 2011, the Registrar/Taxing Master of the Court of Appeal taxed the respondent's costs at Ug.shs.260,000,000, including instruction fees of Ug.shs.259,737,500 under item 9(2) of the Third Schedule. The applicant, dissatisfied, brought this reference contending that the instruction fees were inordinately excessive and that the Taxing Master wrongly held the subject matter to be valued at Ug.shs.39 billion. The applicant argued the claim had no value or that its value was being determined by the Auditor General but offered no proof.

Issues

Whether the value of the subject matter in the appeal was quantifiable, and if so whether Ug.shs.39 billion was the correct value for the purpose of assessing instruction fees.
Whether the instruction fees of Ug.shs.259,737,500 awarded by the Taxing Master were inordinately and manifestly excessive or based on a wrong principle.

Orders

The reference is dismissed.
Costs of the reference awarded to the respondent.
Taxed instruction fees of Ug.shs.259,737,500 upheld.

Key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Reference Against Taxing Master's Ruling — Wrong Principle

On a reference against a taxation ruling, the court will not interfere with the Taxing Master's assessment unless it is shown that the assessment was based on a wrong principle or is manifestly excessive; the party challenging the award bears the burden of proof.

Costs — Instruction Fees — Value of Subject Matter as Guide under Item 9(2) Third Schedule

Where the subject matter of an appeal has a specific and certain monetary value, that value is a guide to the assessment of instruction fees under item 9(2) of the Third Schedule to the Rules of the Court of Appeal.

Costs — Quantification of Subject Matter — Sum Claimed in Underlying Suit

The subject matter of an appeal arising from the dismissal of an application that itself sought recovery of a claimed sum is properly valued at that sum, since success on the appeal reinstates the claim that would otherwise have been lost.

Legislation cited (1)

Rules of the Court of Appeal, Third Schedule item 9(2)

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.