Wakilii

Nabukenya v Nalwanga (Taxation Reference No. 208 of 2014)

Court of Appeal · [2015] UGCA 7 · 2015 Reference Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single Justice of the Court of Appeal challenging the taxing officer's taxation of a bill of costs
Decision
Reference granted; taxed costs reduced from Ug shs 90,267,800 to Ug shs 25,000,000

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 reference under Rule 110 may be instituted informally and a defective commencement causing no prejudice will not bar the litigant. On the merits, the instruction fees of Ug shs 120,000,000 for an election petition appeal and cross appeal were manifestly excessive given the matter's straightforwardness, and were reduced to Ug shs 15,000,000 and Ug shs 10,000,000 respectively. Because more than a quarter of the profit costs had been disallowed, Rule 13 required the costs of drawing, filing, serving and attending taxation to be disallowed. The final taxed costs were reduced to Ug shs 25,000,000.

Facts

The appellant was the unsuccessful party in Election Petition Appeal Number 7 of 2012 but partially succeeded on the cross-appeal. The respondent was awarded costs on the appeal and a quarter of the costs of the cross-appeal. The respondent filed a Bill of Costs on 8 April 2014 totaling Ug shs 230,944,700. The parties were to attempt consensus and report to court, but on the appointed date the Registrar proceeded ex parte. On 17 December 2014 the taxing officer taxed the bill at Ug shs 90,267,800, including instruction fees of Ug shs 120,000,000 (Ug shs 60,000,000 for each of the appeal and cross appeal), despite finding the matter straightforward. The appellant sought a reference, requesting proceedings by a letter dated 19 December 2014, contending the instruction fees were manifestly excessive and that costs of attendance, drawing, filing and service were improperly allowed.

Issues

  1. Whether a valid reference was properly before the Court under Rule 110 of the Court of Appeal Rules where commenced by letter rather than notice of motion.
  2. Whether the instruction fees of Ug shs 120,000,000 awarded by the taxing officer for the appeal and cross appeal were manifestly excessive.
  3. Whether the taxing officer improperly allowed costs of attendance, drawing, filing, service and transport contrary to Rule 13 of the Third Schedule.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Reference granted.
  • Instruction fees reduced to Ug shs 15,000,000 for the appeal and Ug shs 10,000,000 for the cross appeal.
  • Items 11, 16 and 18 of the Bill of Costs disallowed.
  • Final costs allowed at Twenty Five Million Shillings (Ug shs 25,000,000).
  • Parties to bear their own costs.

Key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Commencement of Reference — Rule 110 Court of Appeal Rules
A reference against a taxing officer's decision may be instituted informally or in writing within seven days, and a defect in commencement that occasions no prejudice to the opposing party will not debar the litigant from enforcing the right, rules of procedure being handmaidens of justice.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Manifestly Excessive Award
Instruction fees must be reasonable having regard to the amount involved, the nature, importance and difficulty of the case; an award is manifestly excessive where the matter is straightforward, and voluminous records alone do not justify exorbitant costs.
Taxation of Costs — Excessive Claims — Rule 13 Third Schedule
Where more than one quarter of the profit costs claimed is disallowed on taxation, the costs of drawing, filing and serving the bill and of attending taxation must also be disallowed.
Election Petitions — Costs — Restraint to Protect Democratic Participation
Costs in election petitions should not be used as a weapon against political opponents; courts must balance remuneration of advocates and successful litigants against the need to encourage active political participation and develop democratic governance.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 Rule 110
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 Rule 110(5)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 Rule 43(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 Third Schedule Rule 9(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 Third Schedule Rule 9(3)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 Third Schedule Rule 10
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 Third Schedule Rule 13

Cases cited (7)

  • A.K.P.M Lutaaya v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 1 of 2007)
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Hasa Agencies (K) Ltd (Civil Application No. 1 of 2011)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Patrick Makumbi & Anor v Sole Electronics (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Obiga Mario Kania v Electoral Commission & Anor (Civil Reference No. 169 of 2012)
  • Lanyero Sarah Ochieng & Anor v Lanyero Molly (Civil Reference No. 225 of 2013)
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.