Sugar Corporation of Uganda & Another v Masembe (Civil Application 19 of 2000)

Supreme Court · [2001] UGSC 21 · 2001 Reference Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Reference to a single judge of the Supreme Court under Rule 105(1) of the Rules of the Court against a taxing officer's ruling on a bill of costs

Decision

Reference allowed; instruction fees reduced to Shs 400,000 for the pauper application and Shs 2,000,000 for the appeal.

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 reference under rule 105(1) against the taxing officer's award of instruction fees, the Supreme Court held that a judge interferes with a taxing officer's assessment only in exceptional cases where a wrong principle was applied, which may be inferred from a manifestly excessive award. Both fees were so far out of proportion to the simplicity of the pauper application and the value and non-complexity of the appeal as to disclose an error of principle. The instruction fee for the pauper application was reduced from Shs 2,000,000 to Shs 400,000, and the fee for the appeal from Shs 9,000,000 to Shs 2,000,000.

Facts

The respondent, injured as a passenger in a road accident, sued the applicants in the High Court and recovered general and special damages, the applicants being found 80% liable. The applicants successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. The respondent then obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court as a pauper and partially succeeded, the Supreme Court holding the mini-bus taxi driver 60% to blame and the applicant's tractor driver 40% to blame. The respondent filed a bill of costs and the Registrar, as taxing officer, allowed Shs 2,000,000 as instruction fee for the pauper application and Shs 9,000,000 as instruction fee for the appeal. The applicants brought this reference contending that both figures were manifestly excessive and amounted to an error of principle.

Issues

Whether the instruction fee of Shs 2,000,000 allowed by the taxing officer for the application to appeal as a pauper was manifestly excessive and amounted to an error of principle.
Whether the instruction fee of Shs 9,000,000 allowed by the taxing officer for the appeal was manifestly excessive and amounted to an error of principle.

Orders

Instruction fee on item (1) for the application to appeal as a pauper reduced from Shs 2,000,000 to Shs 400,000.
Instruction fee on item (6) for the appeal reduced from Shs 9,000,000 to Shs 2,000,000.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Review of taxing officer's assessment

Save in exceptional cases a judge will not interfere with the assessment of what the taxing officer considers a reasonable fee, because questions solely of quantum of costs are matters the taxing officer is particularly suited and experienced to deal with; a judge will not alter a fee merely because he would have allowed a higher or lower amount.

Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Error of principle — Manifestly excessive award

An exceptional case justifying interference arises where it is shown expressly or by inference that the taxing officer applied a wrong principle; application of a wrong principle may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low.

Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Threshold for interference once error shown

Even where an error of principle is shown, a judge should interfere only on being satisfied that the error substantially affected the decision on quantum and that upholding the amount allowed would cause injustice to one of the parties.

Civil Procedure — Costs — Instruction fees — Costs of an application to appeal as a pauper

A party who successfully and inter partes applies for leave to appeal as a pauper is entitled to party-and-party instruction fees for that application, the entitlement to interlocutory costs not being defeated by the fact that the party will also receive an instruction fee for the substantive appeal.

Civil Procedure — Costs — Instruction fees on appeal — Relevant factors under Third Schedule paragraph 9

An instruction fee on appeal must be reasonable having regard to the value of the subject matter, the nature, importance and difficulty of the appeal and the work done; giving undue weight to consistency with other interlocutory awards, to the importance of the appeal to a pauper litigant, or to the paying party's wealth, and allowing a fee far out of proportion to a non-complex appeal, is an error of principle.

Legislation cited (5)

Rules of the Supreme Court rule 105(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 93
Rules of the Supreme Court, Third Schedule paragraph 9(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court, Third Schedule paragraph 9(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court, Third Schedule paragraph 9(3)

Cases cited (9)

Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espaniol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
Noble Builders (U) Ltd v Sietco (Civil Application No. 16 of 2000)
Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers Ltd (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein (Civil Application No. 6 of 1993)
Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electronics (Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)
Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services Ltd (No. 3) [1972] EA 162
Simpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation [1960] 3 All ER 833
Jaffer Brothers Ltd vs Deptnetl Asians Property Custodian Boanl, misc. Application No. I3D9 (SCU) (unreported)
Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Application No. 3 of 1995)

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.