Wakilii

Habre International Trading Co. Ltd v Francis Rutagarama Bantariza (Civil Application 7 of 2003)

Supreme Court · [2004] UGSC 16 · 2004 Instructions Fee Reduced ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single judge of the Supreme Court under Rule 105(2) challenging the taxing officer's award of an instructions fee as manifestly excessive
Decision
Instructions fee reduced from Shs.48,000,000 to Shs.5,000,000; applicant awarded Shs.500,000 costs of the reference

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 to a single judge, the court held that the taxing officer had applied wrong principles in allowing an instructions fee of Shs.48,000,000. Treating the length of the court's judgment, the volume of written submissions and the presence of an issue such as fraud as proof of complexity, and faulting counsel for not proposing an alternative figure, were all erroneous. The taxing officer had ignored relevant Rule 9(2) factors, including the interest of the parties, other costs and the impecunious party who was to bear the costs. The fee was grossly excessive and was reduced to Shs.5,000,000.

Facts

Following the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1999, the applicant, Habre International Trading Co. Ltd., was ordered to pay the respondent's costs in that court and in the courts below. The respondent's bill of costs was taxed by the Registrar sitting as taxing officer, who allowed Shs.48,000,000 as an instructions fee. The applicant referred the taxation to a single judge of the Supreme Court, contending that the fee was manifestly excessive. The taxing officer had justified the higher award by reference to the length and detail of the court's judgment, the volume of written submissions, and the presence of an issue of fraud and ownership of property. The applicant submitted that the appeal involved no complex points of law, that any complexity had been resolved in the Court of Appeal, and that he was a sick and impecunious person who had previously failed to pay even smaller taxed costs. A second ground concerning a disbursement of Shs.120,000 was abandoned.

Issues

  1. Whether the instructions fee of Shs.48,000,000 allowed by the taxing officer was manifestly excessive.
  2. Whether the taxing officer applied the correct principles in assessing the instructions fee under Rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules.

Orders

  • The instructions fee of Shs.48,000,000 is disallowed and reduced to Shs.5,000,000.
  • Shs.500,000 awarded to the applicant as costs of this reference.

Key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Instructions fee — Governing factors under Rule 9(2)
The fee allowed for instructions to appeal or to oppose an appeal must be a sum the taxing officer considers reasonable having regard to all the matters in Rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules, namely the amount involved, the nature, importance and difficulty of the appeal, the interest of the parties, the other costs to be allowed, the general conduct of the proceedings, the fund or person to bear the costs and all the circumstances.
Costs — Taxation — What constitutes complexity justifying a higher fee
The length and detail of a court's judgment, or the volume of written submissions filed, does not of itself render an appeal complex or one involving difficult points of law so as to justify a higher instructions fee; nor does the mere presence of an issue such as fraud necessarily make a case complex.
Costs — Taxation — Grounds for interference on reference
A taxing officer's award may be interfered with on a reference where the officer applies wrong principles, including faulting counsel for not proposing an alternative figure and treating the style or detail of a judgment as a measure of the work actually done by counsel who appeared.
Costs — Taxation — Protective purpose of the rules
Taxation of costs must strike a balance between allowing advocates adequate remuneration for their work and reducing costs to a reasonable level so as to protect the public from excessive fees, since prohibitive costs deter would-be litigants.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Supreme Court Rules r.105(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.104(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules Third Schedule para 9(2)

Cases cited (10)

  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1993)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • General Industries v Non-Performing Assets (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1998)
  • Patrick Makumbi and Nakibuuka v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)
  • Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Application No. 3 of 1995)
  • Ebrahim A. Kassam Sherali Ahmed Kasscaw and Onali Allarakhia v. Habre International Ltd. Ref No 16 of 1999
  • Departed Asians' Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Civil Application No. 13 of 1999)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • General Parts (U) Ltd v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Application No. 21 of 2000)
  • Attorney General v K. Ssemwogerere and Zachary Olum (Civil Application No. 20 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.