Wakilii

Akisoferi Michael Ogola v Anika Othieno Emmanuel (Miscellaneous Application 56 of 1993)

High Court · [1999] UGHC 70 · 1999 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation order arising from costs awarded in Election Petition No. 2 of 1996
Decision
Taxation order reduced from shs 21,292,000 to shs 20,842,000 by disallowing item 70

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

Held that a Taxing Officer's discretion in awarding costs will not be interfered with on appeal unless manifestly excessive or contrary to established principles of taxation. The court found that instruction fees of shs 10,000,000 for lead counsel and shs 4,000,000 for second counsel were appropriate for a full hearing election petition lasting 4½ days. However, the Taxing Officer erred in allowing costs for 17.9.1996 proceedings (item 70, shs 450,000) because costs of that day had already been awarded to the appellant against the Electoral Commission. Appeal allowed in part; taxation order adjusted to deduct shs 450,000.

Outcome

Taxation order reduced from shs 21,292,000 to shs 20,842,000 by disallowing item 70

Facts

Following the 1996 Parliamentary elections, the appellant filed Election Petition No. 2 of 1996 against the 1st respondent (the successful candidate). The appellant lost the petition. The 1st respondent had obtained a certificate to be represented by two counsel. The 1st respondent then filed a bill of costs which was taxed and passed by the District Registrar, Tororo High Court, in the sum of shs 21,292,000, including instruction fees of shs 10,000,000 for leading counsel and shs 4,000,000 for second counsel. The appellant appealed the taxation order on grounds that it was excessive, contrary to principles of taxation, and included items already covered by instruction fees or not properly proved.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer failed to apply the principles of taxation in awarding instruction fees of shs 14,000,000.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in allowing items 2-55 of the bill of costs after having already allowed instruction fees which should cover such work.
  3. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in allowing disbursements (items 56, 70, and 86) that were not proved or were excessive.
  4. Whether the total taxation order of shs 21,292,000 was excessive and occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed save for item 70 of the bill of costs.
  • Taxation order for shs 21,292,000 to be adjusted by deducting shs 450,000 disallowed under item 70.
  • 1st respondent to take 3/4 of the costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Principles — Appellate Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion
A court on appeal may interfere with a taxation order by setting it aside, ordering retaxation, or taxing the bill itself. However, the court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a Taxing Officer merely because the costs allowed are high. Interference is justified only in exceptional circumstances, such as where the costs allowed are manifestly excessive or manifestly low, or where the taxation was done in disregard of established principles of taxation.
Taxation of Costs — Principles of Taxation — Four Guidelines
In matters of taxation, the Taxing Officer exercises discretion judiciously along established principles: (a) costs should not be allowed to rise to such a level as to confine access to the courts to the wealthy; (b) a successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed for costs incurred; (c) the general level of remuneration of advocates must be such as to attract recruits to the profession; and (d) so far as practicable there should be consistency in awards made. Additional factors may include the value of the subject matter, prolixity of proceedings, complexity of the case, and the fall in the value of money.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Items Covered
Instruction fees cover all other expenses and work necessary for the prosecution of the case. However, the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation Rules 1982 as amended by SI 3/1993 allow an advocate to charge separately for specific items such as perusals and drawings listed in the Sixth Schedule. Where a Taxing Officer has already allowed instruction fees, items that are subsumed within those instruction fees (items 2-25 relating to routine preparatory work) should not be separately allowed.
Costs — Entitlement of Successful Party — Effect of Prior Orders
A successful party is entitled to costs as these follow the event. However, where costs of a particular day's proceedings have already been awarded to one party against another party (e.g., the Electoral Commission), the overall successful party in the main petition cannot claim those same costs in a subsequent bill. The remedy for challenging such a prior order lies in applying for review or appeal of that order, not in filing a bill claiming costs already awarded elsewhere.
Taxation of Costs — Miscarriage of Justice — Definition
A decision is said to occasion a miscarriage of justice if there is a prima facie case that an error has been made on the record, or where there have been misdirections on matters of fact or law, or where there has been unfairness in the course of the trial. The impecuniosity of a litigant or the possibility that high costs may discourage ordinary citizens from challenging electoral malpractices do not constitute criteria for determining whether a decision has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. A successful party should not be denied properly earned costs on such grounds.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (13)

  • Prichard Raichard Ltd v Quarry Services Ltd [1972] EA 162
  • Zipmas, James Arthur vs Ongori & Others
  • Case Application No. 5 of 1997 Matsiko vs Adyebo & 3 others
  • Godfrey Mutema Nyeya vs Uganda Election Petition No. 8/1996
  • Owoenga Tokonya vs Virgin Election Petition NO. 53/1996
  • Lukula vs Departing Cultivations Ltd
  • Sykes Kinabose v Ponossos [1970] EA 195
  • Cosmos X'boa 1/95; In Re Salim Peturies, X'boa 1/95
  • Attorney General vs Edmond Okurut & Others
  • Nsubuga James Arthur v Adurori [EA 252]
  • Case Adjudication No. 51/1991 Uganda Oxygen Cyprous Auyeko
  • Adamu Oumu vs Prosiscka Amodilia Supreme (1979) HCB 222
  • Nkambo Mugerwa vs Aggrey Theos No. 2/92 (Unreported)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Akisoferi Michael Ogola v Anika Othieno Emmanuel (Miscellaneous Application 56 of 1993) [1999] UGHC 70 (11 February 1999)
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.