Attorney General v Tumushabe (Taxation Reference 1 of 2009)

Supreme Court · [2009] UGSC 34 · 2009 Reference Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Taxation reference to a single Justice of the Supreme Court against the taxing officer's award of instruction fees

Decision

Reference allowed; taxed instruction fee reduced from Shs 50,000,000 to Shs 15,000,000

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 taxation reference, the Supreme Court held that the taxing officer's instruction fee of Shs 50,000,000 was excessive because she relied on irrelevant considerations — the media publicity and public importance of the underlying constitutional case, an assumed (but unproven) extensive research effort, and the fact that the respondent would recover no costs from the Constitutional Court. Instruction fees must be assessed under Rule 9 of the Third Schedule by reference to the amount involved, the nature, importance and difficulty of the appeal, the interests of the parties and the conduct of the proceedings. The reference was allowed and the fee reduced to Shs 15,000,000.

Facts

The respondent had succeeded in the Supreme Court in a constitutional appeal (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2005) arising from public interest litigation concerning the detention of army suspects, and was awarded the costs of that appeal. On taxation, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, sitting as taxing officer, allowed an instruction fee of Shs 50,000,000. The Attorney General referred the taxation to a single Justice, contending that the award was manifestly excessive, inconsistent with prior awards, and contrary to the principle that costs should be kept reasonable. In fixing the fee the taxing officer had taken into account the media attention and public importance of the case, an assumed extensive research effort, and the fact that the respondent had not been awarded costs in the Constitutional Court.

Issues

Whether the instruction fee of Shs 50,000,000 taxed by the taxing officer was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
Whether the taxing officer erred in principle by taking into account irrelevant considerations and failing to apply the established principles governing the assessment of costs.

Orders

Reference allowed.
Instruction fee of Shs 50,000,000 taxed by the Registrar set aside and substituted with Shs 15,000,000.
Costs of the reference awarded to the applicant, not to exceed Shs 5,000,000 in total.
The Registrar directed to draw the attention of the Courts of the Judicature to this ruling.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Assessment of Instruction Fees

A taxing officer must assess an instruction fee under Rule 9 of the Third Schedule by reference to the amount involved in the appeal, its nature, importance and difficulty, the interests of the parties, the other costs to be allowed, the general conduct of the proceedings and other relevant circumstances.

Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Interference on Reference

A court on a taxation reference will interfere with the taxing officer's discretionary award only where the award is unlawful or manifestly excessive, or where the officer took irrelevant matters into account or failed to take relevant matters into account.

Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Irrelevant Considerations

The media publicity and public importance attracted by a case, and the length or style of the resulting judgment, are irrelevant to the assessment of an instruction fee because they do not reflect the actual work done by counsel.

Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Costs in Another Court

A taxing officer errs in taking into account that the successful party will recover no costs in the court below, as doing so improperly suggests that costs ought to have been awarded in that court.

Legislation cited (4)

Rules of the Supreme Court r.106(1) and (3)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.94
Rules of the Supreme Court, Third Schedule, r.9(2)
Judicature Act, Third Schedule, r.9

Cases cited (8)

Paul K. Ssemwogerere and Zachary Olum v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 5 of 2001)
Charles Onyango Obbo v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 6 of 2002)
Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga and James Kimala (Civil Application No. 2 of 2008)
Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust v General Parts (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 13 of 2000)
Patrick Makumbi and Nakibuuka Enterprises v. Sole Electrics (U) Ltd
C.C. Candran v Kengrow Industries (Civil Application No. 22 of 2002)
Habre International Trading Co. Ltd v Francis Rutagarama Bantariza (Civil Application No. 78 of 2003)

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.