Non-Performing Asset Recovery Trust v General Parts (U) Limited (Civil Application 13 of 2000)

Supreme Court · [2000] UGSC 34 · 2000 Reference Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Reference to a single judge of the Supreme Court under rule 105(5) from a taxing officer's taxation of a bill of costs

Decision

Reference allowed; taxed instruction fees reduced from Shs 188,927,437 to Shs 5,000,000

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 under rule 105(5), Karokora JSC first overruled a preliminary objection, holding that rule 105 imposes no time limit for referring a taxation to a single judge and that an application to the Registrar need not state grounds. On the merits, the taxing officer erred in principle by assessing instruction fees on the respondent's indebtedness to UCB (about Shs 2.2 billion), which was never determined on appeal; the true subject matter was whether the receiver/manager had been properly appointed, and counsel had done little work before the Court. The reference was allowed and the taxed instruction fees reduced from Shs 188,927,437 to Shs 5,000,000, with costs of the reference to the applicant.

Facts

UCB sued General Parts (U) Ltd to recover a debt of about Shs 2.29 billion and sought a declaration that it had properly appointed a Receiver/Manager. The Non-Performing Asset Recovery Trust was joined as co-plaintiff after UCB assigned the debt to it. The High Court granted the declaration and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, but the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the lower courts and awarded the successful party one quarter of the costs in the Supreme Court and the courts below. The successful party's bill of costs of Shs 372,903,250 was taxed and allowed at Shs 188,927,437 by the taxing officer, who assessed instruction fees by reference to the debt figure and to observations in the leading judgment. The losing party referred the taxation to a single judge, contending that the officer wrongly based the fee on the amount of indebtedness and on the judges' work rather than on the work actually done by counsel.

Issues

Whether the application to make a reference, and the reference itself, were time-barred under rule 105(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Whether the taxing officer applied wrong principles in assessing the instruction fees by relying on the judges' work and the value of the subject matter.
Whether the value of the subject matter on appeal was the amount of the debt, when the indebtedness was never determined by the Supreme Court.
Whether the taxing officer erred in failing to take into account costs of the lower courts and the fund out of which costs would be paid.
Whether the instruction fees awarded were manifestly excessive so as to constitute an error in principle.

Orders

Preliminary objection overruled.
Reference allowed.
Taxed costs reduced from Shs 188,927,437 to Shs 5,000,000.
Costs of the reference awarded to the applicant.

Key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Basis of Assessment under rule 9(2)

In assessing instruction fees under rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule, a taxing officer must have regard to the amount actually involved in the appeal; it is an error of principle to base the fee on a sum claimed in the principal suit which was never determined on appeal.

Taxation of Costs — Reference to a Single Judge — Time Limits under rule 105(5)

Rule 105 of the Rules of the Supreme Court fixes no time within which a reference must be made to a single judge; an application to the Registrar to make a reference may be made informally or in writing within seven days and need not state the grounds or reasons for the reference.

Taxation of Costs — Interference on Reference — Manifestly Excessive Award

A single judge on a reference will interfere with a taxing officer's award of instruction fees where the officer based the assessment on a wrong principle resulting in a manifestly excessive sum.

Taxation of Costs — Equality of Litigants — Statutory Bodies

A statutory body or trust created to recover debts enjoys no special protection from costs; every litigant must be treated equally before the law irrespective of status.

Legislation cited (8)

Rules of the Supreme Court r.105(5)
Rules of the Supreme Court Third Schedule r.9(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court Third Schedule r.9(2)
Registration of Titles Act s.114
Registration of Titles Act s.115
Registration of Titles Act s.141
Registration of Titles Act s.154
Registration of Titles Act s.156

Cases cited (11)

Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 48 of 2000)
Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 13 of 1999)
Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 3 of 1999)
General Industries (U) Ltd v NPART (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1998)
Salaman v Warner & Others (1891) 1 QB 734
Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council (1903) 1 KB 517
Patrick Makumbi & Anor v Sole Electronics (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)
Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v DAPCB (Civil Application No. 3 of 1995)
Jaffer Brothers v DAPCB (Civil Application No. 13 of 1999)
Noble Builders (U) Ltd v Sietco (Civil Application No. 16 of 2000)

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.