Adupo Florence vs Atuto Jacinta (Taxation Civil Reference No. 24 of 2021)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that an application for a vote recount under section 55 of the Parliamentary Elections Act filed by Notice of Motion in the Chief Magistrate's Court is not an election petition under section 60, which must be filed in the High Court. The taxing master erred in applying the instruction fee scale for election petitions (minimum UGX 10,000,000) instead of the general provision for matters not specified in the schedule (minimum UGX 2,000,000). The instruction fee award was excessive and set aside.

Outcome

Taxation reference allowed; instruction fee reduced from UGX 10,000,000 to UGX 2,000,000

Facts

The applicant filed an application for a vote recount of ballots in Kapelebyong District Parliamentary elections held on 14 January 2021. The application was brought by Notice of Motion under section 55 of the Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Soroti as Misc. Cause No. 10 of 2021. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent. The taxing master taxed the bill of costs and allowed a total of UGX 11,640,000, including instruction fees of UGX 10,000,000. The applicant challenged the taxation, arguing that the instruction fee was excessive because the matter was a vote recount application, not an election petition, and should have been taxed under the general provision for unspecified matters rather than the election petition scale.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant's application for a vote recount amounts to an election petition.
2. Whether the learned taxing master erred in law in awarding the respondent UGX 10,000,000 as instruction fees for defending an application for a vote recount.
3. What remedies are available to the applicant.

Orders

• The award of UGX 10,000,000 as instruction fees in the taxed bill of costs arising from Misc. Cause No. 10 of 2021 is set aside.
• A sum of UGX 2,000,000 is awarded in its place as instruction fees.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 Rule 8
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rules 1 & 2
• Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.1
• Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.55
• Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.55(1)(2)(3)
• Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.60
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I 267-4 Sixth Schedule Rule 6
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I 267-4 Sixth Schedule Rule 9(1)
• Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) (Election Petitions) Rules S.I 141-2 Rule 3(c)
• Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) (Election Petitions) Rules S.I 141-2 Rule 4

Cases cited (2)

• Nalubale Ssali v J.W.B Kiwanuka & 3 Ors (Taxation Appeal No. 003 of 2013)
• Gulu Institute of Health Science v Bwomu Gerald (HCCA No. 163 of 2016)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Komakech v Muttico Technical Services Limited and Another (Labour Dispute Reference 7 of 2024)

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