Ssenkubuge v Tamale (Taxation Reference 294 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 262 · 2024 Reference Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Taxation reference under Rule 110(3) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions challenging a taxing officer's award of instruction fees

Decision

Taxation reference succeeded; instruction fee reduced from UGX 38,000,000 to UGX 15,000,000

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 under Rule 110(3) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, the Court held that the taxing officer's award of UGX 38 million as instruction fees was manifestly excessive. Although the underlying election appeal carried no monetary value and was important to the candidates and electorate, the appeal turned on striking out affidavits and uncertified Declaration of Results Forms rather than complex re-evaluation of evidence, and the petition had not been concluded. Applying the Rule 9(2) factors and the principle that costs should not discourage electoral participation, the Court reduced the instruction fee to UGX 15,000,000. The reference succeeded with costs to the Appellant.

Facts

The Respondent contested for the position of Chairperson, Bweyogerere Division, Kira Municipality, Wakiso District, and lost. He brought an election petition appeal; the Appellant's objections were upheld by the High Court, prompting the Respondent to file Election Petition Appeal No. 75 of 2016 in the Court of Appeal. The Respondent succeeded and the petition was referred back to the High Court for conclusion of the trial. The Court of Appeal awarded the Respondent costs taxed at UGX 43,726,600/-, inclusive of UGX 38,000,000 as instruction fees. The Appellant brought this taxation reference contending that the instruction fee was manifestly excessive, arguing the appeal was an ordinary election appeal that was neither novel nor complex and did not require re-evaluation of evidence. The record showed the appeal concerned the striking out of certain affidavits and uncertified Declaration of Results Forms, and the underlying election petition had not been concluded.

Issues

Whether the instruction fee of UGX 38 million allowed by the taxing officer in an election petition appeal was manifestly excessive and ought to be reduced under Rule 110(3) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions.

Orders

The instruction fee is reduced and awarded at UGX 15,000,000.
The taxation reference succeeds with costs to the Appellant as the successful party.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Reference under Rule 110(3) — Power of judge to vary a manifestly excessive bill

On a reference under Rule 110(3) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, where a taxed bill of costs is in all the circumstances manifestly excessive or inadequate, the judge may make such deduction or addition as will render the bill reasonable.

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Rule 9(2) factors for assessing a reasonable fee

A reasonable instruction fee under Rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule to the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions is assessed having regard to the amount involved, the nature, importance and difficulty of the appeal, the interest of the parties, the other costs allowed, the general conduct of the proceedings and all other circumstances; the actual work done by counsel must be measured against these factors.

Electoral Law — Costs in Election Petition Appeals — Costs not to discourage participation in elective politics

In assessing costs in election matters the court must balance the remuneration of advocates and successful litigants against the need to develop democratic principles, so that awards of costs do not discourage citizens from contesting elective positions; that an election exercise carries no attached monetary value is a relevant consideration in taxing instruction fees.

Legislation cited (2)

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 r.9(2)

Cases cited (2)

Lanyero Sarah Ochieng & EC v Lanyero Molly (Civil Reference No. 225 of 2013)
Uganda Revenue Authority v Rock Petroleum (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 199 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.