C. C. Chandran v Kengrow Industries Ltd (Civil Application 22 of 2002)

Supreme Court · [2003] UGSC 21 · 2003 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Reference to the full Court from the ruling of a single Justice on a taxation reference from the Registrar (taxing officer)

Decision

Reference dismissed; the single Justice's reduction of the instruction fee to shs 5,000,000 upheld

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 from a single Justice who had reduced a taxing officer's instruction-fee award from shs 16,000,000 to shs 5,000,000, the full Court held that the single Justice had correctly directed his mind to the facts and to rule 9(2) and (3) of the Third Schedule, properly computing the subject matter of the appeal at about shs 30,000,000. There is no mathematical formula for instruction fees; a taxing officer's reasonable assessment, and a single Justice's review of it, will not be interfered with absent a compelling reason. The applicant showed no misdirection or injudicious exercise of discretion. The reference was dismissed with costs.

Facts

In an earlier Supreme Court appeal, Kengrow Industries Ltd (the present respondent) had lost an appeal against C. C. Chandran (the present applicant). Chandran presented a bill of costs to the Registrar as taxing officer, who awarded shs 16,000,000 as instruction fees on a bill claiming shs 50,000,000 in instruction fees. Kengrow referred that award to a single Justice (Kanyeihamba, JSC), who computed the amount finally decreed by the Supreme Court in the underlying appeal at slightly over shs 30,000,000 (US$12,600 at shs 1,800 to the dollar, approximately shs 13,000,000, plus further sums of about shs 7,240,000) and, finding the taxing officer's award manifestly excessive, reduced the instruction fee to shs 5,000,000. Dissatisfied, Chandran referred the matter to the full Court, contending the subject matter was actually about shs 64,945,000 and that, taking inflation into account, the original award should stand.

Issues

Whether the single Justice misdirected himself in law or fact in holding that the subject matter of the appeal was approximately shs 30,000,000.
Whether the single Justice misapplied the principles of taxation under rule 9(2) and (3) of the Third Schedule to the Rules of the Court in assessing the instruction fee.
Whether the single Justice erred in relying on decided authorities he cited rather than those cited by counsel for the applicant.
Whether the instruction fee of shs 5,000,000 awarded by the single Justice was manifestly inadequate and an error in law.

Orders

The reference is unsuccessful and the application is dismissed.
The respondent shall have the costs of this reference and those before the single Justice.

Key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Instruction fee — No fixed scale or mathematical formula

There is no scale or mathematical formula for calculating an instruction fee on appeal; under rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule the taxing officer must award a sum he considers reasonable, exercising judicial discretion by weighing the amount involved, the nature, importance and difficulty of the appeal, the interests of the parties and all other relevant circumstances.

Costs — Taxation — Interference with taxing officer's assessment

A taxing officer's opinion on what is a reasonable instruction fee is not to be interfered with lightly; there must be a compelling reason to justify interference, and the same standard governs a single Justice or court reviewing taxed costs.

Costs — Taxation — Relevant amount is the sum decreed by the reviewing court

For taxation of costs of an appeal in the Supreme Court, the relevant amount involved is the sum decreed by that Court in the appeal, not the amount appearing in the decree of the court below.

Costs — Taxation — Inflation and exaggerated bills

While the fall in the value of money (inflation) must be borne in mind when costs are taxed, inflation cannot be a basis for awarding exorbitant costs, and exaggerated bills of costs must be discouraged.

Costs — Taxation — Authorities the court may consider

In determining a reference a Justice is not confined to the authorities cited by counsel and may consider other authorities, provided they are relevant to the controversy between the parties.

Legislation cited (9)

Rules of the Supreme Court r.105(7)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.105(3)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.41(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.1(3)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.101(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court Third Schedule r.9(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court Third Schedule r.9(3)
Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.11(2)
Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.14(1)

Cases cited (10)

A.A. Kassam and 2 Others v Habre International (Civil Application No. 16 of 1999)
General Parts (U) Ltd v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Application No. 21 of 2000)
Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers Ltd (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services (No.3) (1972) EA 162
Simpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation (1964) 3 All ER 833
Paul Ssemogerere & Olumu v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 5 of 2001)
Makula International Ltd v H.E. Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11
Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Application No. 3 of 1993)
Departed Asians Property Custodian Board Vs Jaffer Brothers (Supra)

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.