Wakilii

Alcon International Limited v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda and Ors. (Reference 1 of 2014)

East African Court of Justice · [2015] EACJ 52 · 2015 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference challenging the Taxing Officer's ruling on instruction fees in Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2012, arising from costs awarded in Appeal No. 2 of 2011
Decision
Reference dismissed; Taxing Officer's award of USD 17,000 as instruction fees upheld

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 Court held that the Taxing Officer properly exercised her discretion in awarding USD 17,000 as instruction fees. The claimed amount of USD 2,827,130.00 was exorbitant and unreasonable given that the appeal was not complex and concerned only whether the Trial Court erred in striking out the Reference on a preliminary objection. The value of the underlying subject matter was not relevant to the assessment of costs for the appeal. The Reference was dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Outcome

Reference dismissed; Taxing Officer's award of USD 17,000 as instruction fees upheld

Facts

Alcon International Limited successfully appealed to the EACJ Appellate Division in Appeal No. 2 of 2011, resulting in the setting aside of the First Instance Division's ruling that had struck out its Reference. The Appellate Division awarded costs to Alcon. In the subsequent taxation of costs, Alcon claimed USD 2,827,130.00 plus VAT as instruction fees, arguing that the appeal involved complex issues of Treaty interpretation, substantial documentary evidence, and significant research in a new area of law. The Taxing Officer awarded USD 17,000 without VAT. Alcon filed this Reference challenging the award as manifestly low and in violation of taxation principles. The Respondents contended that the appeal was not complex, concerned only a preliminary objection point, and that the claimed amount was exorbitant.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer exercised her discretion properly in taxing the Bill of Costs.
  2. Whether the order of the Taxing Officer in awarding instruction fees should be varied and if so to what extent.

Orders

  • The Taxing Officer's assessment is upheld and left undisturbed.
  • The Reference is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Discretion of Taxing Officer — Grounds for Appellate Interference
A court hearing a reference against a ruling involving the exercise of a Taxing Officer's discretion will not normally interfere merely because it would have awarded a different figure. Interference is justified only where the amount taxed was manifestly excessive or manifestly deficient as to amount to an injustice, or the Taxing Officer followed a wrong principle or applied wrong considerations.
Taxation of Costs — Burden of Proof on Applicant Challenging Taxation
It is not sufficient to merely allege that the Taxing Officer improperly exercised discretion or acted upon a wrong principle. The complainant must clearly point out the wrong principle followed and demonstrate how the discretion was wrongly exercised.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Principles of Assessment
Instruction fees in contentious matters are discretionary and not susceptible of precise calculation. The Taxing Officer must exercise discretion to determine what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of each particular case, having regard to the amount involved, the nature, importance and complexity of the matter, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances.
Taxation of Costs — Access to Justice — Reasonableness of Costs
The cost of doing business in court should be kept to a level that is reasonable and affordable so as not to deter any citizen from seeking justice, while remaining proportionate for the purpose of remunerating the advocate. Acceding to an exorbitant claim would effectively bar the less financially privileged from accessing the court.
Taxation of Costs — Relevance of Subject Matter Value in Appeals on Preliminary Points
Where an appeal concerns only whether the Trial Court erred in striking out a Reference on a preliminary objection, and the merits of the Reference were not under scrutiny, the value of the subject matter of the underlying Reference is not a relevant factor in assessing instruction fees for the appeal.

Legislation cited (12)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 114
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 113(3)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 9(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 9(4)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 27(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 151
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 23(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 23(3)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 35A
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 33(2)
  • Protocol on the Establishment of the E.A. Community Common Market Article 29(2)
  • Protocol on the Establishment of the E.A. Community Common Market Article 54(2)(b)

Cases cited (15)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Owners of the Motor Vessels Lillian S v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited [1989] KLR
  • Fanuel Mantiri N'gunda v Herman Mantiri N'gunda and 20 Others (CAT) Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995 (unreported)
  • In the Matter of Kenya Representative to the East African Legislative Assembly, Taxation No. 6 of 2008
  • Taxation Reference No. 4 of 2010: Kenya Ports Authority vs. Modern Holdings EA Ltd
  • Premchand Rainchand v Quarry Services of East Africa [1972] EA 162
  • Makumbi and Another v Sule Electric (U) Ltd (1990-1994) EA 306
  • The Attorney General v Amos Shavu (CAT) Taxation Reference No. 2 of 2000
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol, Civil Application No. 29 of 1999 (USC)
  • Thomas James Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1969] EA 492
  • Irish Independent Newspaper Ltd v. Irish Press Ltd. [1939] I.R. 371 or 73 I.L.T.R. 177
  • Smyth v. Tunney (1993) 1 I.R.451
  • Modern Holdings (EA) Ltd v. Kenya Ports Authority (EACJ) Reference No. 1 of 2009
  • Doyle v. Deasy & Co. dated March 21st, 2003 (unreported)
  • In the Matter of Kenya Representative to the East African Legislative Assembly, Taxation Cause No. 6 of 2006

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Alcon International Limited v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda and Ors. (Reference 1 of 2014) [2015] EACJ 52 (27 July 2015)
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.