Wakilii

Amudo v Secretary General East African Community (Taxation Reference No.3 of 2016)

East African Court of Justice · [2017] EACJ 123 · 2017 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation reference challenging a taxing officer's ruling on costs arising from an unsuccessful appeal
Decision
Taxation reference partly allowed; certain cost items disallowed and matter remitted to another taxing officer for review of the Bill of Costs

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 Counsel to the East African Community, as a public officer earning a salary, is not entitled to costs for perusals, drawing, filing documents and service, as these are part of normal duties. The Court struck out the Respondent's defective affidavit for non-compliance with procedural requirements. The Court ordered a review of the Bill of Costs to exclude the disallowed items, but upheld the inclusion of costs from Application No. 15 of 2012 and found no error in the award of copying costs.

Outcome

Taxation reference partly allowed; certain cost items disallowed and matter remitted to another taxing officer for review of the Bill of Costs

Facts

The Applicant was the unsuccessful party in Appeal No. 4 of 2014, which was dismissed with full costs in both the Appellate Division and First Instance Division of the East African Court of Justice. The Respondent filed a Bill of Costs which the Registrar taxed and allowed at USD 4,605. Dissatisfied with the taxation ruling dated 9 November 2016, the Applicant filed a taxation reference challenging the award of costs for perusals, drawing, filing documents, service and photocopying. The Applicant also challenged the inclusion of costs from Application No. 15 of 2012 and raised a preliminary objection to the Respondent's Affidavit in Reply on grounds that it was not properly signed by the deponent.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Taxing Officer erred in law when he awarded the Secretary General costs for perusals, drawing, filing documents in Court and service.
  2. Whether the learned Taxing Officer erred in law when he awarded the Secretary General costs in Application No. 15 of 2012.
  3. Whether the learned Taxing Officer erred in law when he awarded the Secretary General photocopying costs.
  4. Whether the Affidavit in Reply was properly before the Court.

Orders

  • A review of the Respondent's Bill of Costs as regards perusals, drawing, filing documents in Court and service, in both the Appellate and First Instance Divisions, be conducted before another Taxing Officer.
  • The Applicant shall have 2/3 of the costs of this Taxation Reference.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Requirements for Valid Affidavit — Signature of Deponent
An affidavit must satisfy three essential elements to be relied upon by a court: a written oath embodying the facts as sworn to by the affiant, the signature of the affiant, and the attestation by an officer authorised to administer the oath that the affidavit was actually sworn by the affiant before the officer. An affidavit that does not conform with the Rules of Procedure cannot be relied on by the court.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Scope of Appellate Interference
A court does not interfere with the decision of a taxing officer on a question of fact or amount but only where the taxing officer has not had reasonably sufficient material before him or has not taken into account matters that he should have considered, or has applied a wrong principle by taking into account irrelevant factors or omitting to consider relevant factors.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Public Officers — Entitlement to Instruction Fees and Related Costs
Public officers who are paid salaries to represent the government or a public institution in court as part of their normal duties are not entitled to instruction fees, costs for perusals, drawing, filing documents in court or service, as these activities form part of their general duties for which they earn a salary. Such costs are meant to compensate a party for expenses actually incurred for the attainment of justice.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Costs in Interlocutory Applications
Where a court orders that costs of an interlocutory application shall abide the outcome of the main claim, and the main claim is subsequently determined with costs awarded to one party, the costs of the interlocutory application are properly included in the taxation of the main claim and need not be taxed separately unless the court specifically so directs.

Legislation cited (20)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 2(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 3(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 37(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 66(2)(c)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 69(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 69(3)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 69(4)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 17(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 21(5)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 84(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 84(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 85(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 111
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 111(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 113
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 114
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 11(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Item 3(i)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Item 4(a)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Second Schedule Form 3

Cases cited (6)

  • Kenya Ports Authority v Modern Holding Ltd (Taxation Reference No. 4 of 2010)
  • Democratic Party & Mukasa Fred Mbidde v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Taxation Reference No. 3 of 2013)
  • Inspector General of Government v Godfrey Magezi (Taxation Reference No. 1 of 2016)
  • Zuberi v The Returning Officer and Another (Civil Case No. 10 of 1970) [1973] EA 33
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2014)
  • Perkins v Crittenden 462 S.W. 2d 565 (Tex. 1970)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Amudo v Secretary General East African Community (Taxation Reference No.3 of 2016) [2017] EACJ 123 (4 July 2017)
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.