Edward Rubanga v Bashasha & Co. Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 258 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 135 · 2026 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court decision on a taxation appeal concerning an advocate-client bill of costs.

Decision

Appeal allowed in part; instruction fee reduced from UGX 50,000,000 to UGX 3,000,000 and total taxed costs in Miscellaneous Cause No. 289 of 2013 recomputed to UGX 6,133,300.

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 second appeal from taxation, the Court interferes only where the taxing officer applied a wrong principle or the award is manifestly excessive. The Court held the taxing officer's failure to give reasons for the UGX 1,694,459,899 award was a fundamental error in principle that ought to have vitiated the taxation. On fair hearing, the failure to issue formal notice was a procedural lapse but not fatal, as the appellant, though served, remained indolent for a year. The High Court's UGX 50,000,000 instruction fee wrongly conflated the dismissed taxation application with the underlying suits and their decree value; it was manifestly excessive and was reduced to UGX 3,000,000.

Facts

The respondent law firm successfully represented the appellant and a group of co-litigants in consolidated suits. A dispute arose over legal fees, which the firm sought to deduct from the judgment proceeds. The appellant filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 289 of 2013 seeking to have the advocate-client bill of costs taxed. In October 2013 that application was dismissed on technical grounds (no representative order and res judicata), with costs to the respondent. The respondent then filed its bill of costs for that cause, drawn at UGX 2,542,003,455. On 28 June 2017 the taxing officer taxed the bill at UGX 1,694,459,899 without a reasoned ruling, having accepted the respondent's submissions filed about a year out of time; the appellant filed no reply. On appeal to the High Court (Taxation Appeal No. 15 of 2017), Musota J found the instruction fee of UGX 717,030,811 excessive and reduced it to UGX 50,000,000, recomputing total costs to UGX 1,027,429,088. The appellant appealed further to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

Whether the taxing officer's failure to deliver a reasoned ruling constituted an error in principle warranting appellate interference with the taxation.
Whether the acceptance of and reliance on the respondent's submissions, filed out of time and without notice to the appellant, breached the appellant's right to a fair hearing.
Whether the instruction fee of UGX 50,000,000 substituted by the High Court was manifestly excessive.

Orders

The appeal is allowed in part.
The ruling of the High Court in Taxation Appeal No. 15 of 2017 is varied.
The instruction fee awarded to the Respondent is reduced from UGX 50,000,000 to UGX 3,000,000.
The rest of the awards on items 2 to 23 in the bill remain undisturbed; the total taxed costs in Miscellaneous Cause No. 289 of 2013 are recomputed to UGX 6,133,300.
Each party shall bear its own costs in this Court and in the court below.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Duty of taxing officer to give reasons

A taxing officer must articulate reasons justifying the amount of costs allowed, and the failure to do so is a fundamental error in principle that may vitiate the taxation, an obligation that endures and is more compelling where the taxation proceeds ex parte.

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Appellate interference with award

An appellate court will interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of costs only where the officer applied a wrong principle or the award is manifestly excessive or inadequate, a wrong principle being capable of inference from a manifestly excessive award.

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Notice of taxation and procedural fairness

A taxing officer's failure to issue formal notice of taxation is a procedural lapse, but it will not vitiate the proceedings where the party, having been served with the submissions, remained indolent and failed to act diligently; the irregularity must occasion prejudice or a miscarriage of justice to invalidate the taxation.

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Assessment of instruction fees

Instruction fees must be assessed by reference to the nature and extent of the work actually involved in the proceeding being taxed; importing the value or work of underlying substantive suits into the taxation of a summarily dismissed interlocutory application is an error producing a manifestly excessive award.

Constitutional Law — Right to a fair hearing — Article 28(1)

The right to a fair hearing under Article 28(1) of the Constitution includes adequate notice of proceedings and an opportunity to respond to adverse material, but a litigant served with proceedings bears a corresponding duty to act diligently to assert the right to be heard.

Legislation cited (15)

Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123 of 1982 reg.13
Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123 of 1982 reg.13A(2)
Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123 of 1982 reg.37
Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123 of 1982 reg.47(2)
Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123 of 1982 reg.48(1)
Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123 of 1982 reg.53
Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123 of 1982 reg.9
Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123 of 1982 reg.10(2)
Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 7 of 2018)
Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations reg.9
Judicature (Court of Appeal) Directions S.I. 13-10 of 2000 r.32(1)
Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.72(1)
Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.74
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.28(1)
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.44

Cases cited (20)

Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1999)
Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 33 of 1999)
Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd (No. 3) [1972] 1 EA 162
Hajji Haruna Mulangwa v Shariff Osman (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 3 of 2004)
Bank of Uganda v Sudhir Ruparelia & Meera Investments Ltd (Supreme Court Taxation Reference No. 1 of 2023)
Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers Ltd (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
Carolyn Turyatemba & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2006)
Greenland Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) v Rwenzori Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2005)
Celtel Uganda Limited t/a Zain Uganda v Karungi (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2013)
Lubanga Jamada v Dr. Edward Ddumba (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2011)
Paul Ssemwogerere & Anor v Attorney General
Paul Nyamarere & Others v Dison Okumu & Others Taxation Application
Agnes Lyazi v Lydia Sempa & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of 2012)
Habre International Trading Co. Ltd v Bantarinza
Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [96] 1 EA 497
Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board (Civil Appeal No. 220 of 2004)
Evans Thiga Gaturu v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd [2012] eKLR 4274
Okova v Nyayenga (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2017)
Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates (Civil Appeal No. 66 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.