General Parts (U) Ltd v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Application 21 of 2000)

Supreme Court · [2001] UGSC 18 · 2001 Reference Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application under r.105(7) of the Supreme Court Rules to the full Court to reverse a single Justice's ruling on a taxation reference

Decision

Reference allowed; the single Justice's assessment varied and the instruction fee for the appeal reassessed at Shs.15,000,000, with the remainder of the bill as taxed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Treatment recorded in citing cases applied in 1 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 an application to reverse a single Justice's taxation-reference ruling, the Supreme Court held that the respondent's letter of 24 May 2000 was a proper and timely application for a reference under r.105(5): such an application is in the nature of a notice to the Registrar, not a motion under r.11 requiring grounds. On quantum, the single Justice rightly found the taxing officer's award of Shs.187,500,000 manifestly excessive, but misdirected himself in finding counsel did little work and in fixing Shs.5,000,000, which was manifestly inadequate. The Court allowed the reference and assessed the reasonable instruction fee for the appeal at Shs.15,000,000.

Facts

General Parts borrowed money from Uganda Commercial Bank (UCB), securing repayment by, among other things, a debenture and a mortgage. On General Parts' default, UCB appointed a Receiver/Manager under the debenture, whom General Parts forcefully resisted. UCB sued for a declaration that the appointment was properly made; the High Court granted it and the Court of Appeal upheld it. On further appeal, the Supreme Court held in Civil Appeal No.5 of 1999 that the appointment of the Receiver/Manager was invalid and allowed the appeal with three-quarters of the costs. The taxing officer taxed General Parts' bill of costs at Shs.188,427,437, of which Shs.187,500,000 was the instruction fee. By letter of 24 May 2000, NPART (successor to UCB) applied for a reference, and a single Justice reduced the costs to Shs.5,000,000. General Parts then brought this application to the full Court to reverse that decision.

Issues

Whether the respondent's letter of 24 May 2000 was a proper and timely application for a reference under r.105(5) of the Supreme Court Rules.
Whether the taxing officer's award of instruction fees was manifestly excessive.
Whether the single Justice's reduction of the instruction fee to Shs.5,000,000 was a misdirection and manifestly inadequate, and what is a reasonable instruction fee.

Orders

Reference allowed.
The decision of the single Justice varied: the fee for instructions to appeal is allowed at Shs.15,000,000.
The rest of the amounts in the applicant's Bill of Costs shall be as taxed and allowed by the taxing officer.
The applicant (General Parts (U) Ltd) shall have costs of the reference.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Reference to a Judge — Nature of application under r.105(5)

An application for a reference to a Judge under r.105(5) of the Supreme Court Rules is in the nature of a notice to the Registrar, not an application under r.11 on which the Registrar makes a judicial decision, and need not state the grounds or specify the matters to be referred; a letter requiring a reference within seven days of taxation is a proper and timely application.

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Reference — Scope of reference

On a reference confined to the instruction fee, the Judge has no power to reduce items of taxed costs that were not the subject of the reference.

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Principles of assessment

A reasonable instruction fee is assessed not by any mathematical formula but by the hypothetical-counsel test, balancing the work done by counsel, the value of the subject matter, other costs to be allowed, and the magnitude of responsibility counsel shoulders in advising the client to appeal.

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Consistency

Although there must be consistency in the assessment of instruction fees, a taxing officer is bound to follow the binding decisions of the Court and may not, in the name of consistency, rely on a taxation that is not an order of a court of record.

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Appellate interference — Manifestly excessive or inadequate

The Court will interfere with a taxation or a single Judge's assessment of instruction fees where the amount is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate, or where the assessor misdirected himself on the relevant principles or premises.

Legislation cited (7)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1996 r.105(5)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1996 r.105(7)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1996 r.105(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1996 r.105(3)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1996 r.11
Rules of the Supreme Court 1996 3rd Schedule paragraph 9(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1996 3rd Schedule paragraph 9(1)

Cases cited (6)

Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services Co (No. 3) [1972] EA 162
Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 1 of 1999)
ATTORNEY GENERAL UGANDA vs ... BLANKET MANUFACTURERS (1973) L.T.D. Civil Application No. 17 of 1991 (unreported)
General Industries v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1998)
Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Application No. 3 of 1995)
Civil Appeal No.5 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.