Wakilii

Akisoferi Ogola v Akika Othieno and Another (Miscellaneous Application 56 of 1998)

High Court · [1999] UGHC 33 · 1999 Appeal Dismissed (Partly Allowed) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation order of the District Registrar, Tororo High Court District Registry, arising from unsuccessful Election Petition No. 2 of 1996
Decision
Taxation order largely upheld. Item 70 disallowed. Adjusted total taxation: UGX 20,842,000.

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 the Taxing Officer correctly applied the principles of taxation when awarding instruction fees of UGX 10,000,000 to lead counsel and UGX 4,000,000 to second counsel, given the importance and full hearing of the election petition. The Taxing Officer did not allow items 2-55 as these were set off against instruction fees. Item 70 (costs of UGX 450,000 for proceedings of 17 September 1996) was disallowed as those costs had been awarded to the appellant against the Electoral Commission. Appeal dismissed save for the disallowance of item 70. Appellant ordered to pay 3/4 of the respondent's costs.

Outcome

Taxation order largely upheld. Item 70 disallowed. Adjusted total taxation: UGX 20,842,000.

Facts

The appellant was an unsuccessful candidate in the 1996 parliamentary elections. He filed Election Petition No. 2 of 1996 against the 1st respondent, who was declared the winner. The appellant lost the petition. The 1st respondent obtained a certificate to be represented by two counsel. The District Registrar, Tororo, taxed the 1st respondent's bill of costs and passed costs at UGX 21,292,000, including instruction fees of UGX 10,000,000 for lead counsel and UGX 4,000,000 for second counsel. The appellant appealed the taxation order under section 61 of the Advocates Act 1970.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer failed to apply the principles of taxation when he allowed instruction fees of UGX 14,000,000 in total to the respondent's counsel.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in law and in fact by allowing claims covered by instruction fees.
  3. Whether the Taxing Officer allowed disbursements and expenditure that were not proved and authorised by law.
  4. Whether the taxation order occasioned a miscarriage of justice by awarding excessive costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed save for item 70 of the bill of costs.
  • Item 70 disallowed: the sum of UGX 450,000 set aside.
  • The initial taxation order for UGX 21,292,000 to be adjusted by deducting UGX 450,000.
  • The 1st respondent shall take 3/4 of the costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Principles — Application by Taxing Officer
A Taxing Officer exercises discretion judiciously along established principles: costs should not confine access to courts to the wealthy; a successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed; remuneration of advocates must attract recruits to the profession; and there should be consistency in awards. The court will interfere with a taxation only in exceptional circumstances, such as where costs are manifestly excessive or low, or awarded in disregard of these principles.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Inclusion of Other Work
Instruction fees cover all other expenses and work necessary for the prosecution of a case. Items claimed separately that fall within the scope of instruction fees should be disallowed or set off against the instruction fees award.
Taxation of Costs — Successful Party's Entitlement to Costs
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 in favour of another party by court order, those costs cannot be claimed by the successful party in the main action.
Taxation of Costs — Appeal from Taxation — Grounds for Interference
A judge on appeal may interfere with a taxation order by setting it aside, ordering retaxation, or taxing the bill himself. However, the court will not interfere merely because costs appear high. Interference is warranted only in exceptional circumstances, such as where costs are manifestly excessive or manifestly low, or where the taxation was conducted in disregard of established principles.
Miscarriage of Justice — Meaning in Context of Taxation
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 unfairness in the course of the trial. A party's inability to pay costs or public discouragement from litigation are not criteria for determining whether a taxation order has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (14)

  • Prichard Raichard Ltd v Quarry Services Ltd [1972] E.A. 162
  • Zipmas, James Arthur vs Aciri Election Case
  • Lasapio (JT) No. 63/1992 Natsomi vs Adyebo & 2 others
  • Godfrey P. Kadya vs Mwesigwa Patrick Election Petition No. 2
  • Okellokwan Tokuma vs Erimu Election Petition EP 53/1996
  • Tradewind Aviation Ltd vs Ledkula Excavations Ltd
  • Namusoke vs Nattabi HCCA 6/95
  • S.C. Karuhanga vs Sol Koetteis SCCA 1/96
  • Attorney General vs Erineo Magara and 2 others SCCA 4/97
  • James Arthur vs Renny Uiada EA 452
  • LAK (JT) Application No. 013/97 HCMisca Okega Okurumu vs Amicus Associates
  • Pio Aryo Ohuma vs Presiding Appellate Judge [1997] HCB 222
  • Bidco Brown vs Aquinas Thomas No. 2/92 (Unreported)
  • Malunibi John Bosco vs Katiti Kivejinja

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Akisoferi Ogola v Akika Othieno and Another (Miscellaneous Application 56 of 1998) [1999] UGHC 33 (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.