Mubiru & 3 Ors v Nakato & Anor (Civil Reference No. 147 of 2012)

Court of Appeal · [2013] UGCA 15 · 2013 Reference Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Reference to a single judge of the Court of Appeal from the decision of the taxing officer under Rule 110(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Decision

Reference allowed; instruction fees reduced from shs. 5,000,000/= to shs. 1,000,000/=

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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, the single judge held that a judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of costs save in exceptional cases where a wrong principle was applied, inferable from a manifestly excessive or low award. The taxing officer erred by treating a brief, one-page interlocutory application for an interim stay as complex and by relying on unfounded 'novel research', thereby allowing an excessive instruction fee of shs. 5,000,000/=. The error of principle substantially affected quantum and caused injustice. The award was set aside and substituted with shs. 1,000,000/=.

Facts

The applicants were dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court in Civil Suit No. 336 of 2012. They lodged a notice of appeal and filed Miscellaneous Application No. 59 of 2012 seeking an interim order to stay execution of the orders arising from that suit. The application was dismissed and the respondents filed a bill of costs, which was taxed and allowed at shs. 9,152,330/= on 23 July 2012. The contested item was instruction fees to defend the application, allowed at shs. 5,000,000/= by the taxing officer. The applicants challenged this fee as manifestly excessive, arguing the application was routine and not complex, the proceedings ran to only one page, and the parties were from the same family. The applicants had already paid the respondents shs. 4,152,330/=. The taxing officer had cited preparation and 'novel research' as justification for the fee.

Issues

Whether the instruction fees of shs. 5,000,000/= allowed by the taxing officer were manifestly excessive.
Whether the taxing officer improperly exercised his discretion by applying a wrong principle in assessing the instruction fees.

Orders

The award of instruction fees of shs. 5,000,000/= is set aside.
An award of shs. 1,000,000/= (one million shillings) is substituted in its place.

Key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Interference by Judge on Reference

Save in exceptional cases, a judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of a reasonable fee, since questions of quantum of costs are matters the taxing officer is particularly fitted to deal with.

Costs — Taxation — Error of Principle Inferred from Excessive Award

An exceptional case justifying interference arises where the taxing officer applied a wrong principle, which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low.

Costs — Taxation — Test for Interference Where Error Shown

Even where the taxing officer erred on principle, a judge should interfere only if satisfied that the error substantially affected the decision on quantum and that upholding the amount would cause injustice to a party.

Costs — Instruction Fees — Nature and Complexity of Application

In assessing instruction fees, the nature and complexity of the matter must be considered; treating a brief, one-page interlocutory application as complex, and relying on research not borne out by the record, is a misdirection amounting to an error of principle.

Costs — Public Interest in Reasonable Costs

Public interest requires that costs be kept to a reasonable level so as not to keep poor litigants out of court.

Legislation cited (4)

Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 110(3)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 109(2)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Third Schedule paragraph 9(1)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Third Schedule paragraph 9(2)

Cases cited (6)

Premchand Raichand Ltd and Another v Quarry Services of East Africa and Others [1972] EA 162
Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1993)
Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
Akesoferi Michael Ogola v Akika Othieno Emmanuel (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1999)
Salaman v Warner and Others (1891) 1 QB 734

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.