Wakilii

Akisoferi v Akika & Another (Civil Appeal 18 of 1999)

Court of Appeal · [1999] UGCA 29 · 1999 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal against an award of costs made by the High Court in an election petition taxation
Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and costs reduced to 13,642,000/=

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 3 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 3 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 10 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against a High Court award of costs in an election petition taxation. It held that although the judge and taxing officer had outlined the applicable taxation principles, the judge failed to apply the principle that costs must not be allowed to rise so as to confine court access to the rich, and wrongly stated that items 2-55 had been disallowed when they had not, since they were already covered under the instruction fee. The appellate judge was entitled under section 61 of the Advocates Act to carry out deductions himself. The instruction fees were reduced and items 2-55 disallowed, reducing total costs to 13,642,000/=.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and costs reduced to 13,642,000/=

Facts

In 1996 the appellant, Akisoferi Michael Ogola, unsuccessfully contested parliamentary elections against the first respondent, Akika Othieno Emmanuel. The appellant filed an election petition challenging the results, which was dismissed with costs to the respondent. The District Registrar taxed the costs at 21,292,000/=. The appellant appealed to the High Court against the amount, and the judge, though ordering a reduction of 450,000/=, otherwise confirmed the taxation, including 14,000,000/= for the two counsel and items 2-55 of the bill relating to perusal and drawing of documents. The appellant appealed further, contending the taxation principles were misapplied, that items 2-55 were already covered under the instruction fee in item 1, and that the appellate judge failed to properly scrutinise the record.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge properly applied the principles of taxation, particularly that costs must not be allowed to rise so as to confine access to courts to the rich.
  2. Whether items 2-55 of the bill of costs were properly awarded when they were already covered under the instruction fee in item 1.
  3. Whether the appellate judge was entitled to carry out the deduction of costs himself rather than remit the bill to the taxing officer.
  4. Whether the appellate judge properly exercised his duty as a first appellate court to re-scrutinise the record of the lower court.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs of the appeal to the appellant.
  • Judgment of the High Court dated 11/2/99 set aside.
  • Amount in item 1 reduced: leading counsel from 10,000,000/= to 7,000,000/= and junior counsel from 4,000,000/= to 2,500,000/=.
  • The amount of 3,150,000/= awarded by the lower court in items 2-55 is disallowed.
  • Costs reduced to 13,642,000/= awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Application of Principles — Access to Courts
It is not enough for a court merely to outline or state the principles governing taxation of costs; their application to the particular facts must be clearly demonstrated, including the principle that costs must not be allowed to rise so as to confine access to the courts to the wealthy.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fee — Duplication of Items
The advocate's instruction fee covers all work necessary to institute or defend the suit, including perusal and drawing of documents necessary to present the case; separate items for such work already covered under the instruction fee ought not to be additionally awarded.
Taxation of Costs — Powers of Appellate Judge under Advocates Act s.61
Under section 61 of the Advocates Act, the appellate judge on a taxation appeal may either carry out the taxation himself or remit the bill to the taxing officer, and is entitled to carry out deductions personally.
First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-scrutinise Record
A first appellate court must subject the record of the lower court to a fresh scrutiny and reach its own conclusion; failure to do so which results in a misleading finding is a proper ground for interference on further appeal.
Illegality — Concession by Counsel — Effect
A party should not be bound by an illegal or irregular concession made by his counsel, and once an illegality is brought to the notice of the court it must not be sanctioned or condoned.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Premchand Raichand Ltd. And Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd. And others [1972] EA 162
  • Henry Makmot v George Cosmas Adyebo and 2 others (Misc. Application No. 918 of 1997)
  • Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
  • Makula International Ltd. v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11

Cases citing this judgment (9)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Akisoferi v Akika & Another (Civil Appeal 18 of 1999) [1999] UGCA 29 (29 June 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.