Wakilii

Amatos Mwebeiha v Alex Bashasha t a Bashasha & Co. Advocates (Taxation Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 160 · 2025 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation ruling on bill of costs arising from miscellaneous cause
Decision
Instruction fees reduced; other items upheld; total bill of costs allowed at UGX 13,650,000

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

The High Court held that an advocate may depose to an affidavit in support of a contentious application without contravening Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations where the advocate does not personally conduct the matter. On taxation, the court reduced instruction fees from UGX 20 million to UGX 10 million, finding the original award excessive for a non-complex matter, but upheld the taxing master's award of disbursements without receipts under Regulation 51 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, which makes production of receipts discretionary at the High Court level.

Outcome

Instruction fees reduced; other items upheld; total bill of costs allowed at UGX 13,650,000

Facts

The appellant challenged a taxation ruling awarding the respondent advocate UGX 20 million as instruction fees and UGX 1,800,000 as disbursements in Miscellaneous Cause No. 159 of 2023, which arose from Civil Suit No. 382 of 2015. The appellant argued the miscellaneous cause was an interlocutory application and should have been taxed under Schedule 6 Paragraph 9(2) with a maximum of UGX 300,000. The appellant also challenged the disbursements award for lack of supporting receipts and alleged miscalculation of certain items. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the supporting affidavit was defective because it was sworn by an advocate in a contentious matter. The taxing master had found the application was not complex, the workload was within normal range, and the matter did not stay long in the system, but awarded UGX 20 million as instruction fees.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is proper before court.
  2. Whether the taxing master's award in Miscellaneous Cause No. 159 of 2023 should be set aside.

Orders

  • Application partly allowed.
  • Instruction fees reduced from UGX 20,000,000 to UGX 10,000,000.
  • Other items taxed by the taxing officer remain as taxed.
  • Total bill of costs allowed at UGX 13,650,000.
  • Each party to bear own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Advocates — Professional Conduct — Advocate Deponing Affidavit in Contentious Matter
Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations does not bar an advocate from deponing to an affidavit in support of an application in a contentious matter where the advocate does not personally conduct the matter; the regulation only bars an advocate from appearing before court on behalf of a client when the advocate is a witness or potential witness in a contentious matter.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Interlocutory Applications — Definition
An interlocutory application is an application made to court in a case that is already in court but before a final decision is made; an application filed after the main case has been concluded is not an interlocutory application but a supplementary or ancillary application and cannot be taxed under Schedule 6 Paragraph 9(2) governing interlocutory applications.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Excessive Award
Where a taxing master awards instruction fees ten times the minimum amount prescribed under Schedule 6 Paragraph 9(1) in a matter that is not complex, has normal workload, and does not stay long in the system, without giving reasons to justify the award, the award is excessive and a judge should interfere with the taxing officer's discretion.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Purpose of Costs — Not Punitive
Costs should not be used to serve as punitive damages; the purpose of costs is to compensate the successful party for their expenses and may act as a disincentive to pursuing frivolous or unnecessary lawsuits, but they are not intended to punish the losing party.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Disbursements — Production of Receipts
Under Regulation 51 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, it is not mandatory for an applicant to avail receipts for disbursements at taxation before the High Court; receipts need only be produced if the taxing officer deems it necessary and requests them, unlike under the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules which make production of receipts mandatory.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Appellate Interference — Principles
A judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of costs merely because the judge would have allowed a higher or lower amount; interference is justified only in exceptional cases where the taxing officer applied a wrong principle, which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low, and only where the error substantially affected the decision on quantum and upholding the amount would cause injustice.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Advocates Act s.68
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals & References) Regulations Regulation 3(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.50 r.8
  • Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Rules Schedule 6 Paragraph 9(1)
  • Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Rules Schedule 6 Paragraph 9(2)
  • Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations Regulation 9
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Regulation 51
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Schedule 3 Paragraph 2
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Schedule 3 Paragraph 3

Cases cited (3)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanal (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1999)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1994)
  • Falcon Estated Ltd v Bismillah Trading Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Taxation Reference No. 3 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Amatos_Mwebeiha_v_Alex_Bashasha_t_a_Bashasha_&_Co._Advocates_(Taxation_Miscellaneous_Appeal_No._9_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_160_(31_July_2025)
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.