Wakilii

Sudhir Ruparelia and Meera Investments Limited v Bank of Uganda (Taxation Reference No. 05 of 2023)

Supreme Court · [2025] UGSC 49 · 2025 Reference Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to the full Court from the decision of a single Justice on a taxation reference, brought under rule 106(7) and (8) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions.
Decision
Reference allowed in part: the striking out of the 2nd Applicant's bill of costs was set aside and each Applicant awarded UGX 500,000,000 in instruction fees; the remaining grounds (2, 3, 4 and 5) failed.

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 majority decision, the Supreme Court held that paragraph 17 of the Third Schedule does not prohibit two separately-sued parties who instruct the same advocate from filing separate bills of costs; the single Judge therefore erred in striking out the 2nd applicant's bill, and each applicant was awarded UGX 500,000,000 in instruction fees. However, where the appeal turned solely on a point of law (a receiver's capacity to sue), the value of the dismissed suit was not "the amount involved in the appeal", so the reduction of the instruction fees and interlocutory fees, and the disallowance of drawing, attendance and perusal costs, were upheld. The reference was accordingly allowed in part.

Facts

Bank of Uganda placed Crane Bank Ltd under receivership and, in Crane Bank's name, sued Sudhir Ruparelia and Meera Investments Limited to recover approximately UGX 458.6 billion and 48 freehold titles for alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The High Court dismissed the suit for want of locus standi, holding that a company in receivership could not sue; appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court failed, the Supreme Court appeal being withdrawn and dismissed with costs to the applicants. The applicants then filed two separate bills of costs (about UGX 54 billion each), which the taxing officer allowed at roughly UGX 54.18 billion per bill. On Bank of Uganda's reference, a single Justice (Chibita JSC) struck out the 2nd applicant's bill, reduced the instruction fees to UGX 500,000,000, reduced the interlocutory-application fees to UGX 5,000,000 each, and disallowed drawing, attendance and perusal costs. The applicants referred that decision to the full Court.

Issues

  1. Whether two parties who were separately sued but represented by the same advocate in one appeal are entitled to file separate bills of costs.
  2. Whether the value of the subject matter of the original suit constitutes "the amount involved in the appeal" under paragraph 9(2) of the Third Schedule for assessing instruction fees.
  3. Whether the single Judge erred in setting aside instruction fees of UGX 45,860,682,730 awarded by the taxing officer and substituting UGX 500,000,000.
  4. Whether the single Judge erred in reducing instruction fees for the interlocutory applications from UGX 50,000,000 to UGX 5,000,000 each.
  5. Whether the single Judge erred in disallowing costs for drawings, copies, attendances and perusals.

Orders

  • The finding by the single Judge that the value of the subject matter was not an amount involved in the appeal is upheld.
  • The striking out by the single Judge of the bill of costs filed by the 2nd Applicant under Taxation Application No. 06 of 2022 is set aside; each Applicant was entitled to file a separate bill of costs.
  • The award of UGX 500,000,000 to the 1st Applicant as instruction fees in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2020 is upheld; the 2nd Applicant is likewise awarded UGX 500,000,000 as instruction fees.
  • The award of UGX 5,000,000 as instruction fees for each of the Miscellaneous Applications is upheld.
  • The disallowance of amounts for drawings, copies thereof, attendances and perusals is upheld.
  • Each party shall bear their respective costs of this Reference, the Reference before the single Judge, and the taxation by the Registrar.

Key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Separate bills of costs for co-parties represented by one advocate
Paragraph 17 of the Third Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules is instructive, not prohibitive; two parties who are separately sued and each awarded costs may file separate bills of costs notwithstanding that they were represented by the same advocate, and the taxing officer's remedy for any duplication is to disallow improper items or consolidate the bills, not to strike one out.
Costs — Instruction fees — Meaning of "amount involved in the appeal"
The value of the subject matter of the original suit constitutes "the amount involved in the appeal" under paragraph 9(2) of the Third Schedule only where that value was itself an issue or question to be determined in the appeal; where the appeal turns solely on a point of law, the monetary value of the suit is not the amount involved in the appeal.
Costs — Taxation — Interference with the taxing officer's discretion
A judge hearing a reference will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of instruction fees merely because he would have awarded a different figure; interference is justified only where the amount is manifestly excessive or manifestly deficient so as to amount to injustice, or the taxing officer applied a wrong principle or consideration.
Costs — Certificate of two counsel
A certificate of two counsel is required only where one party instructs two or more advocates for the same work; it has no application where two distinct parties give separate instructions to the same advocate and are each awarded costs.
Costs — Drawings, attendances and perusals on party-and-party taxation
Under paragraph 9(3) of the Third Schedule instruction fees include all work necessarily and properly done in connection with the appeal, including attendances, correspondence and perusals; on a party-and-party taxation a successful respondent's solicitor's work is ordinarily nil and cannot be separately charged.

Legislation cited (20)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions rule 106(7) & (8)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions rule 105
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Third Schedule para.9(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Third Schedule para.9(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Third Schedule para.9(3)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Third Schedule para.9(4)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Third Schedule para.10
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Third Schedule para.11(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Third Schedule para.12
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Third Schedule para.15
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Third Schedule para.17
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27(1)
  • Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.95(1)
  • Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.96
  • Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.99(1) & (2)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 21
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 237(2)(c)
  • Land Act s.40
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations reg.42
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 reg.10

Cases cited (24)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2008)
  • Attorney General v Hon. Theodore Sekikubo and 4 Others (Civil Reference No. 13 of 2016)
  • Mbale Resort Hotel (U) Ltd v Babcon (Uganda) Limited (Taxation Reference No. 18 of 2018)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd [1972] EA 162
  • Makumbi and Another v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd [1990-1994] 1 EA 306
  • Ebrahim A. Kassim v Habre International Ltd (Civil Reference No. 16 of 1999)
  • First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Others [2002] 1 EA 64
  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Services Ltd (Civil Reference No. 13 of 2005)
  • Bank of Uganda v Transroad Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1997)
  • Sietco vs Noble Builders, Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1993/1995
  • Nguruman Limited vs Kenya Civil Aviation Authority & 3 others [2014] eKLR
  • Bank of Africa Uganda Ltd v Kayonza Distributors Ltd and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2013)
  • Hon. Ababiku Jesca vs Eriyo Jesca Osuna, Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 004, 003 and 0037 of 2015
  • CC Chandran v Kengrow Industries Ltd (Civil Application No. 22 of 2002)
  • Paul Ssemogerere and Zachary Olum v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 5 of 2001)
  • Orient Bank Ltd v Zaabwe and Another [2008] 1 EA 322
  • Concorp International Ltd v Eastern and Southern Africa Trade and Development Bank (Civil Reference No. 1 of 2013)
  • Khatijabai Jiwa Hasham v Zanab (1957) EA 255
  • Simpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation (No. 2) [1964] Costs LR (Core) 29
  • EMI Records Ltd v Ian Cameron Wallace Ltd and Another [1982] All ER 980
  • Alcon International Limited v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda & Ors (East African Court of Justice, Appellate Division)
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.