Wakilii

Insurance Regulatory Authority v Leads Insurance Limited (Taxation Reference 4 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 310 · 2024 Reference Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference and cross reference to a single Justice of the Court of Appeal from the Deputy Registrar's (taxing officer's) ruling on a bill of costs.
Decision
Taxation reference and cross reference both dismissed; the taxing officer's award of UGX 72,806,200 (including UGX 60,000,000 instruction fees and VAT) upheld.

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

The applicant challenged a taxed bill of costs of UGX 72,806,200 (including UGX 60,000,000 instruction fees) as manifestly excessive, while the respondent cross-referenced it as manifestly inadequate. The single Justice held that a judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of quantum save in exceptional circumstances or where a wrong principle was applied, and only where the error substantially affected quantum so as to cause injustice. The taxing officer rightly treated the underlying appeal as a matter of great public importance, so the instruction fee was reasonable; the other items had been agreed before taxation. Both the reference and cross reference were dismissed, each party bearing its own costs.

Facts

The Insurance Regulatory Authority revoked Leads Insurance Limited's licence for the 2012 financial year. Leads sought judicial review; the High Court dismissed the application, holding the matter was not amenable to judicial review. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's orders, declared that the Authority had not complied with the law in revoking the licence, and awarded Leads costs in both courts. Leads filed a bill of costs claiming UGX 588,250,650. The Deputy Registrar, as taxing officer, taxed and allowed UGX 72,806,200, of which UGX 60,000,000 was instruction fees and UGX 10,800,000 was VAT. The Authority referred the taxation to a single Justice, contending the award was manifestly excessive and the law improperly applied to the evidence. Leads cross-referenced, contending the costs were manifestly inadequate given the appeal's great public importance and the magnitude of the subject matter (valued at UGX 6,751,195,000).

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer's award of costs, particularly UGX 60,000,000 as instruction fees, was manifestly excessive or based on a wrong principle so as to warrant interference by a single Justice.
  2. Whether the costs allowed were manifestly inadequate given the public importance and magnitude of the underlying appeal.
  3. Whether the cross reference, contesting only the quantum of costs, was competent under rule 110(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Orders

  • The taxation reference is dismissed.
  • The cross reference is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs of the reference and cross reference.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Interference with the taxing officer's discretion on quantum
Save in exceptional circumstances, a judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of a reasonable fee; interference is justified only where the taxing officer applied a wrong principle (which may be inferred from an award that is excessive or manifestly low) and the error substantially affected the quantum such that upholding the award would cause injustice to a party.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction fees — Public importance and magnitude as relevant factors
In assessing instruction fees under paragraph 9 of the Third Schedule to the Court of Appeal Rules, the taxing officer may properly treat the public importance, magnitude and difficulty of the appeal as relevant factors justifying a higher fee.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Competence of a reference on quantum
Under rule 110(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules there can be no reference on a question of quantum only; a reference lies only where the bill as taxed is, in all the circumstances, manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate under rule 110(3).
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Items agreed before taxation
A party cannot, on reference, contest items of a bill of costs that were agreed by its counsel before the taxing officer prior to taxation.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Award of VAT
Where the receiving party's law firm is registered for VAT, an award of VAT on the taxed instruction fees is proper and will not be disturbed merely because no VAT certificate was tendered, the registration being uncontroverted.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 rule 53(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 rule 110(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 rule 110(3)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 rule 110(4)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 rule 109(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 rule 109(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 rule 9(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 rule 9(4)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Third Schedule paragraph 9
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 Third Schedule paragraph 16
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Sixth Schedule paragraph 10

Cases cited (12)

  • Bank of Uganda v Sudhir Ruparelia & Anor (Taxation Reference No. 1 of 2023)
  • Bank of Uganda v Sudhir Ruparelia & Anor (Taxation Application No. 1 of 2023)
  • Simbamanyo Estates Ltd & Ors v Equity Bank Uganda Limited & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 16 and 24 of 2021)
  • Lanyero Sarah & Anor v Lanyero Molly (Reference No. 225 of 2013)
  • Twinobusingye v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 27 of 2013)
  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga (Civil Application No. 2 of 2008)
  • Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services of East Africa [1972] EA 162
  • Attorney General v Sekikubo & Ors (Civil Reference No. 13 of 2016)
  • Muwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General (Civil Reference No. 38 of 2017)
  • Paul Kawanga Ssemwogerere & Anor v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 5 of 2001)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Reference No. 23 of 1999)
  • Namuddu Christine v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1999)
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.