Wakilii

Anita V A.G. of Republic of Uganda (Taxation Cause 5 of 2013)

East African Court of Justice · [2015] EACJ 88 · 2015 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of costs following partial success in Reference No. 6 of 2012
Decision
Bill of costs taxed and reduced from USD 12,530,362.30 to USD 59,148.33; applicant awarded USD 14,787 being one quarter of taxed costs as ordered in the underlying judgment

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 Taxing Officer awarded USD 20,000 as instruction fees (plus VAT) and USD 5,900 as getting-up fees, together with agreed disbursements totalling USD 29,648.33, for a grand total of USD 59,148.33. As the applicant had been awarded only a quarter of taxed costs in the underlying judgment, the final award was USD 14,787. Disbursements without receipts were disallowed. The Taxing Officer rejected the applicant's claim for USD 10 million instruction fees, finding it excessive and distinguishing the case from the Anyang Nyongo precedent on grounds of complexity and novelty.

Outcome

Bill of costs taxed and reduced from USD 12,530,362.30 to USD 59,148.33; applicant awarded USD 14,787 being one quarter of taxed costs as ordered in the underlying judgment

Facts

The applicant filed a bill of costs totalling USD 12,530,362.30 following partial success in Reference No. 6 of 2012, in which she challenged the Rules of Procedure for Elections of Members to the East African Legislative Assembly. The underlying judgment found that only Rule 13(1) and (2) of Appendix B of the 2012 Rules were inconsistent with Article 50(1) of the Treaty and ordered the First Respondent to amend them. The applicant was awarded one quarter of taxed costs. At the taxation hearing, the parties agreed on most items in the bill save for instruction fees (claimed at USD 10 million), getting-up fees, and certain disbursements without receipts. The applicant argued that the reference was complex, novel, and of public importance, justifying the high instruction fees. The respondent contended that the issues had been previously litigated and that the claim was excessive.

Issues

  1. What is the appropriate amount to be awarded as instruction fees in a taxation of costs where the applicant partially succeeded in the underlying reference?
  2. Whether disbursements claimed without supporting receipts should be allowed on taxation.
  3. What principles govern the taxation of costs in the East African Court of Justice?

Orders

  • Instruction fees taxed at USD 20,000 plus VAT at 18% (USD 3,600).
  • Getting-up fees taxed at USD 5,900.
  • Agreed items totalling USD 29,648.33 allowed as taxed.
  • Items 47, part one of item 60, and item 90 taxed off for lack of supporting receipts.
  • Grand total of taxed costs: USD 59,148.33.
  • Applicant awarded one quarter of taxed costs as per underlying judgment: USD 14,787.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Principles Governing Assessment
In taxing instruction fees, the taxing officer must exercise discretion judicially, guided by the nature of the reference, its importance and complexity, the interest of the parties, the general conduct of proceedings, and the person to bear the costs. Costs must not be allowed to rise to such a level as to confine access to courts to the wealthy, but a successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed for costs incurred.
Taxation of Costs — Disbursements — Requirement for Receipts
Rule 4 of the Second Schedule of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure mandates that receipts for disbursements shall be produced to the taxing officer and copies served on the other party at least 14 days before taxation. Failure to comply with this mandatory requirement results in the disbursements being taxed off.
Taxation of Costs — Comparison with Precedent — Distinguishing Cases
Each taxation must be decided on its own facts and merits. A case involving a single applicant who succeeded on only one aspect of the reference cannot be equated with a more complex precedent involving eleven applicants, multiple interlocutory applications, and novel issues of first impression, even where both cases concern interpretation of the same Treaty provision.

Legislation cited (4)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 4 of the Second Schedule
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 2 of the Taxation Schedule
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 50(1)

Cases cited (10)

  • Antony Calist Komu v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Reference No. 7 of 2011)
  • Democratic Party & Mukassa Mbidde Vs The Attorney General of Uganda
  • Prof. Peter Anyang Nyongo & 11 others Vs The Attorney General of Kenya and others
  • Democratic Party and Another v Attorney General of Uganda (Taxation Reference No. 3 of 2013)
  • Prof. Anyang Nyongo and 10 Others v Attorney General of Kenya (Reference No. 1 of 2006)
  • Democratic Party and Another v Attorney General of Uganda and Another (Reference No. 6 of 2012)
  • Democratic Party and Mukasa Mbidde v Attorney General of Uganda (Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2011)
  • Janson case
  • Egerton v Brownlow
  • Bowman v Secular Society Ltd [1917] AC 427

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Anita V A.G. of Republic of Uganda (Taxation Cause 5 of 2013) [2015] EACJ 88 (20 March 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.