Yesero Mugenyi v Abdul Nasser (Taxation Reference 2 of 2022)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 1 · 2024 Reference Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Reference to a single justice of the Court of Appeal under Rule 110 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions against the Deputy Registrar's taxation of a bill of costs.

Decision

Reference partly granted; instruction fee of UGX 15,000,000 upheld, but items 14–21 (drawing, filing, serving and attending taxation) disallowed, reducing the taxed bill from UGX 18,014,000 to UGX 16,830,000.

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 reference against the taxing officer's award of UGX 18,014,000 in costs, the Court of Appeal (single justice) held that the UGX 15,000,000 instruction fee for the appeal was neither manifestly excessive nor deficient, the taxing officer having properly exercised her discretion under paragraph 9 of the Third Schedule to the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, and an appellate court should not interfere absent a misdirection of principle. However, because more than one-quarter of the profit costs claimed had been taxed off, Rule 13 of the Third Schedule required the costs of drawing, filing, serving and attending taxation to be disallowed. The reference was granted in part and the bill reduced to UGX 16,830,000.

Facts

The appellant, with leave of the High Court, filed Civil Appeal No. 239 of 2015 in the Court of Appeal challenging an order of Kwesiga, J that had allowed the respondent to amend his plaint to join a party and plead additional facts. That appeal was dismissed and the High Court was directed to determine Civil Suit No. 87 of 2005 with speed. The respondent's counsel filed a bill of costs claiming UGX 99,468,600, including UGX 80,000,000 in instruction fees on appeal. The subject matter of the underlying dispute was a residential house at Plot 27 Kololo Hill Drive (LRV 801, Folio 24), from which the appellant had allegedly collected rent since 1981 without remitting it. The Deputy Registrar, sitting as taxing officer, reduced the instruction fees to UGX 15,000,000 and taxed the whole bill at UGX 18,014,000, disallowing VAT for want of proof of payment. The appellant brought this reference contending the entire bill was inaccurate, manifestly excessive and unconscionable.

Issues

Whether the taxing officer's award of UGX 15,000,000 as instruction fees for the appeal was manifestly excessive and made without applying the correct principles of taxation.
Whether the remaining items of the bill of costs were properly taxed.
Whether, more than one-quarter of the profit costs having been disallowed, the costs of drawing, filing, serving the bill and attending taxation should themselves be disallowed.

Orders

Reference granted to the extent that items 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 are disallowed.
Final costs allowed at UGX 16,830,000.
Each party to bear its own costs of the reference.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Appellate Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion

A court hearing a reference against a taxing officer's exercise of discretion will not interfere merely because it would have awarded a different figure; interference is justified only where the taxing officer misdirected herself on a matter of principle, and a misdirection may be inferred where the quantum assessed is manifestly extravagant.

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Assessment of Instruction Fees on Appeal

Instruction fees to appeal or oppose an appeal must be a sum the taxing officer considers reasonable having regard to the amount involved, the nature, importance and difficulty of the matter, the interests of the parties and the work necessarily done; costs must not rise so high as to deny the poor access to court, yet must remain sufficient to attract worthy recruits to the legal profession.

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Consequences of Disallowing Excessive Claims

Under Rule 13 of the Third Schedule to the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, 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.

Legislation cited (4)

Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.110
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.110(3)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Third Schedule para.9
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Third Schedule r.13

Cases cited (7)

Western Highlands Creameries Ltd & Anor v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Taxation Reference No. 70 of 2013)
Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electrics Uganda Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services of East Africa [1972] EA 162
Steel Construction & Petroleum Engineering (EA) Ltd v Uganda Sugar Factory Ltd [1970] EA
Ngoma Ngime v Electoral Commission & Hon. Winnie Byanyima (Election Petition No. 11 of 2002)
Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
Langero Sarah Ochieng & Anor v Langero Molly (Court of Appeal 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.