Wakilii

Acire v Okumu & Another (Civil Appeal No. 165 of 2016)

High Court · [2019] UGHC 32 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of costs following dismissal of an election petition
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

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

The High Court dismissed an appeal from taxation of costs, holding that the Taxing Officer properly exercised discretion in awarding shs. 30,000,000/= instruction fees to each respondent. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting intervention, as the amount was within the range of awards in similar cases and the Taxing Officer committed no error in principle or fact. The VAT ground was misconceived as no VAT was included in the assessed amount.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The appellant contested Parliamentary elections for Aswa County in February 2016 and lost. He filed an election petition challenging the results, which was dismissed with costs awarded to the two respondents. The first respondent filed a bill claiming shs. 120,000,000/= as instruction fees; the second respondent claimed shs. 200,000,000/=. On 18 November 2016, the Taxing Officer awarded shs. 30,000,000/= to each respondent as instruction fees. The appellant appealed the taxation, arguing the awards were excessive and that VAT should not have been included.

Issues

  1. Whether the award of shs. 30,000,000/= as instruction fees to each respondent was excessive, unconscionable and oppressive.
  2. Whether the award of VAT was justified.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Appellate Intervention — Exceptional Circumstances Test
Questions solely of quantum are matters which Taxing Officers are particularly fitted to deal with and the court will intervene only in exceptional circumstances which must be markedly unusual or specially different thereby rendering the case for intervention remarkably strong or compelling.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Appellate Review — Standard of Intervention
The appellate court will interfere with a taxation award only on being satisfied that the circumstances are markedly unusual or specially different such that upholding the amount allowed would cause injustice, and the facts must truly demonstrate that without the court's intervention a grave injustice may result.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Grounds for Appellate Interference
The court will interfere with a taxation award if it comes to the conclusion that the Taxing Officer erred in principle, or that the award is so manifestly excessive as to justify treating it as indicative of the exercise of a wrong principle, or that there are exceptional circumstances which otherwise justify the court's intervention.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Discretion of Taxing Officer
Taxation of bills of costs is not an exact science but a matter of opinion as to what amount is reasonable given the particular circumstances of the case, and the power to tax costs is discretionary but must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously.

Cases cited (2)

  • Thomas James Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] EA 492
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Acire v Okumu & Another (Civil Appeal No. 165 of 2016) [2019] UGHC 32 (29 August 2019)
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.