Wakilii

Attorney General and Another v Turyamijereba and Another (HCT-00-CU-MA-0785-2001)

High Court · [2003] UGHC 120 · 2003 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of costs following judgment in favour of plaintiffs for unlawful eviction
Decision
Instruction fee reduced from Shs.1,400,499,000/= to Shs.109,700,000/=; total bill of costs for 1097 litigants reduced from Shs.1,403,669,000/= to Shs.113,257,000/=

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 instruction fee of Shs.1,400,974,000/= awarded by a taxing officer for 1097 litigants whose cases never proceeded to trial was manifestly excessive and constituted an error in principle. The court reduced the instruction fee to Shs.109,700,000/= as reasonable in the circumstances. Applying Premchand principles, the court found it unfair to award similar instruction fees for cases that went to trial and those that did not, where minimal work was done.

Outcome

Instruction fee reduced from Shs.1,400,499,000/= to Shs.109,700,000/=; total bill of costs for 1097 litigants reduced from Shs.1,403,669,000/= to Shs.113,257,000/=

Facts

In HCCS No.207 of 1993, 1230 plaintiffs sued the Attorney General and Kabalega District Council for unlawful eviction from Mpokya Game Reserve. The court allowed 133 plaintiffs to present a test case under Order 35 rule 1 CPR, with the outcome to bind all plaintiffs. The remaining 1097 plaintiffs' cases never proceeded to trial. Mukanza J found unlawful eviction and awarded each plaintiff Shs.10,000,000/= general damages and Shs.2,000,000/= exemplary damages. Bills of costs were filed: Shs.287,899,400/= for the 133 plaintiffs and Shs.1,403,669,000/= for the 1097 plaintiffs. The Deputy Registrar taxed and allowed instruction fees of Shs.160,065,000/= for the 133 and Shs.1,400,499,000/= for the 1097. The Attorney General appealed the latter instruction fee under s.61(1) Advocates Act 1970.

Issues

  1. Whether the instruction fee of Shs.1,400,974,000/= awarded by the taxing officer is manifestly excessive as to constitute an error in principle.
  2. Whether the taxing officer erred in considering individual awards as a basis of assessing instruction fees rather than the gross award.
  3. Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in not adequately taking into account the public interest principle.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The bill of costs of Shs.1,403,669,000/= awarded in respect of the 1097 litigants is set aside.
  • The instruction fee of Shs.1,400,499,000/= is substituted with an award of Shs.109,700,000/=.
  • Total award in respect of 1097 litigants substituted with Shs.113,257,000/=.
  • The taxed bill of costs of Shs.219,468,300/= in respect of the 133 litigants remains intact.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Manifestly Excessive Awards
An instruction fee is manifestly excessive if it is out of proportion with the value and importance of the suit and the work involved, constituting an error in principle justifying appellate interference.
Taxation of Costs — Assessment of Instruction Fees — Premchand Principles
In assessing instruction fees, the court must consider: (a) that costs not rise to a level confining court access to the wealthy; (b) that a successful litigant be fairly reimbursed; (c) that remuneration attract recruits to the profession; and (d) that there be consistency in awards made.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Multiple Litigants
Where multiple litigants sue through a single attorney who gives instructions to counsel, it is unfair and an error in principle for a taxing officer to consider individual awards instead of the gross award when assessing instruction fees.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Work Actually Done
It is an error in principle to award uniform or similar instruction fees to litigants whose cases proceeded to full trial and those whose cases never went to trial, where the amount of work done by the advocate in both sets of cases was not equal.
Appeals from Taxation — Scope of Appeal Under Advocates Act s.61(1)
Section 61(1) of the Advocates Act 1970 is broad in scope and permits appeals from party-to-party taxation proceedings to a Judge of the High Court within thirty days of the taxing officer's order.
Pleadings — Parties Bound by Pleadings
A party to court proceedings is bound by their pleadings and will not be allowed to succeed on a case not set up by them or to set up at trial a case inconsistent with what is alleged in the pleadings filed.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (10)

  • Premchand Raichand Ltd and Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and Others (No.3) [1972] EA 162
  • Simpson Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation [1964] 3 All ER 833
  • Interfreight Forwarders (Uganda) Ltd v East Africa Road Services Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1993)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Alexander J Okello v Kayondo And Company Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Attorney General v PK Ssemwogerere and Zachary Olum (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2000)
  • Makula International Ltd Vs.H.E. Cardinal Nsubuga and Rev. Dr. Father Kyeyune
  • Henry MB Makmot v George Cosmas Adyebo and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 430 of 1998)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1999)
  • The Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute Vs DAPCB, Civil Appeal No.3

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General and Another v Turyamijereba and Another (HCT-00-CU-MA-0785-2001) [2003] UGHC 120 (21 March 2003)
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.