Wakilii

ATC v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No TAT 17 of 2019)

Tribunal · [2021] UGTAT 24 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of bill of costs following successful defence by respondent in tax dispute
Decision
Bill of costs partly taxed; contested items disallowed; agreed items totalling UGX 3,020,000 allowed

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

Held that a party using in-house counsel is not entitled to instruction fees in a bill of costs because no instruction fees were actually incurred. Held further that perusals cannot be charged separately under the Sixth Schedule as they are included within instruction fees under items 1 to 10 unless otherwise provided. Both contested items in the bill of costs were disallowed.

Outcome

Bill of costs partly taxed; contested items disallowed; agreed items totalling UGX 3,020,000 allowed

Facts

The respondent Uganda Revenue Authority successfully defended a tax dispute before the Tax Appeals Tribunal with costs. The respondent filed a bill of costs under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018. At pre-taxation, the parties agreed on most items totalling UGX 3,020,000. Two items remained in dispute: instruction fees of UGX 2,000,000 and perusals of UGX 100,000. The applicant objected on grounds that the respondent used in-house counsel and therefore incurred no instruction fees, and that perusals are not separately chargeable under the Sixth Schedule.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent is entitled to instruction fees when using in-house counsel.
  2. Whether perusals can be charged separately under the Sixth Schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018.

Orders

  • Item 1 (instruction fees) disallowed.
  • Item 2 (perusals) disallowed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the taxation.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Instruction Fees — In-House Counsel
A party that uses in-house counsel to conduct litigation is not entitled to instruction fees in a bill of costs because no instruction fees were actually incurred or paid to external counsel.
Costs — Taxation — Perusals — Sixth Schedule
Under the Sixth Schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018, perusals cannot be charged separately because they are included within instruction fees under items 1 to 10 unless otherwise expressly provided.
Costs — Taxation — Principles — Fair Reimbursement
The principle of costs is to fairly reimburse the successful litigant for what was actually spent in the case, and the rules of taxation must strike a balance between adequate remuneration for advocates and protection of the public from excessive fees.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018 Rule 47
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018 Fifth Schedule Part 5
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018 Sixth Schedule

Cases cited (3)

  • Total (Uganda) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Reference No. 26 of 2003)
  • Akisoferi Micheal Ogola v Akika Othieno Emmanuel (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1999)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufactures (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

ATC v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No TAT 17 of 2019) 2021 UGTAT 24 (23 March 2021)
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.