Wakilii

Attorney General v Akello & 8 Others (Miscellaneous Application 38 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 10 · 2025 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from the ruling of the Assistant Registrar who re-taxed a bill of costs on reference from a previous taxation appeal
Decision
Taxation appeal partly allowed. Instruction fee reduced from UGX 45 billion to UGX 100 million. Total taxed costs set at UGX 236,127,000.

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 court held that the taxing officer erred in law by (1) denying the parties a hearing during re-taxation, violating their constitutional right to a fair hearing; (2) applying the wrong legal principles by basing instruction fee on 44,937 claimants instead of the single representative plaintiff; and (3) using a 3% rate rather than the prescribed sliding scale. The instruction fee award of UGX 45 billion was set aside and replaced with UGX 100 million, calculated on the proper basis that only one plaintiff represented 580 individuals.

Outcome

Taxation appeal partly allowed. Instruction fee reduced from UGX 45 billion to UGX 100 million. Total taxed costs set at UGX 236,127,000.

Facts

In 2011, Akello Betty obtained a representative order to sue on behalf of herself and 580 individuals for compensation for livestock and property lost during the insurgency in Lango Sub-Region (1986-2006). After trial, court in 2014 awarded compensation based on a verification report (PE1). In 2015, the 2nd to 9th respondents were added to the decree by consent. The plaintiff's lawyers lodged a bill of costs claiming UGX 150 billion in instruction fee based on 56,081 claimants. A taxing officer allowed UGX 45 billion. This was appealed and referred back for reconsideration. The new taxing officer re-assessed the fee at UGX 45 billion based on 44,937 claimants identified in PE1, without hearing the parties. The Attorney General appealed this second taxation ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the taxation appeal and/or is functus officio?
  2. Whether the taxation appeal is barred by res judicata?
  3. Whether the taxation appeal is barred by estoppel?
  4. Whether the taxation appeal constitutes an abuse of court process?
  5. Whether the learned taxing officer erred in law and fact and improperly exercised judicial discretion in awarding the instruction fee of UGX 45,000,000,000 without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard?
  6. Whether the learned taxing officer erred in law and fact when he relied on PE1 (a verification report) and not the representative order to ascertain the number of plaintiffs and award the instruction fee to the respondents?
  7. Whether the award of instruction fee of UGX 45,000,000,000 is manifestly excessive and constitutes an error in principle?

Orders

  • The instruction fee of UGX 45,000,000,000 and the VAT of UGX 8,100,000,000 are set aside in their entirety.
  • Instruction fee is awarded at UGX 100,000,000.
  • The award of UGX 136,127,000 on other items in the bill of costs remains undisturbed.
  • The Applicant as Defendant in the head suit shall pay aggregate taxed costs of UGX 236,127,000.
  • Costs shall be paid through M/s Bashasha & Co. Advocates as ordered by Ajiji J in Miscellaneous Application No. 099 of 2019.
  • Compensation and other awards given by Byabakama J shall be paid to each beneficiary and the plaintiff as directed by Ajiji J.
  • VAT on instruction fee is declined as there is no VAT certificate on court record.
  • Costs of the taxation appeal are awarded to the Attorney General to be paid by the 1st to 9th respondents only.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Right to Fair Hearing — Constitutional Protection
The right to a fair hearing during taxation of a bill of costs is embedded in article 28(1) of the Constitution and encompasses the right to appear either by counsel, in person, or through a recognized agent. A decision arrived at in denial of this right is no decision at all and is null and void.
Taxation of Costs — Representative Suits — Assessment of Instruction Fee
In a representative suit, the assessment of instruction fee must be confined to the total awards due to the named representative plaintiff only, not the aggregate awards due to all beneficiaries of the representative order. To do otherwise constitutes an error of principle.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fee — Application of Sliding Scale
Instruction fee in contentious matters in the High Court and Magistrates Court must, by regulation 37 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, be based on the 6th schedule sliding scale as amended by S.I 7/2018. The practice of taxing officers using a percentage instead of applying the sliding scale is illegal and must be discouraged.
Representative Suits — Parties to the Suit — Adding Beneficiaries
In a representative suit under Order 1 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, there is only one plaintiff who represents the interests of other beneficiaries. The represented persons are not themselves plaintiffs and cannot be treated as such for procedural purposes including taxation of costs.
Functus Officio — Taxation Appeals — Successive Rulings
A court is not functus officio where it hears an appeal from a fresh taxation ruling made pursuant to a reference ordered by the same court in an earlier taxation appeal. The doctrine of functus officio does not prevent the court from adjudicating on matters flowing from a re-taxation ordered by that court, as such matters have never been finally determined.
Res Judicata — Taxation Appeals — Different Rulings
The doctrine of res judicata does not bar an appeal from a taxation ruling made on reconsideration following a court reference, even where the appellant raised similar grounds in the earlier taxation appeal. The matters before the court arise from a new decision and have not been finally settled by the earlier ruling.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (42)

  • Tarlogan Singh v Jaspal Phaguda & others (1997-2001) UCLR 408
  • Henry Kamoga & 5 others v Bank of Uganda (Civil Suit No. 62 of 2009)
  • Ibrahim Buwembo & 2 others on behalf of 800 others Vs. UTODA Ltd
  • Hon. Justice Prof. Dr. G.W Kanyeihamba v Amos Nzeyi & 3 others (Civil Suit No. 361 of 2010)
  • Kasozi Joseph & 50,003 others v UMEME (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 188 of 2010)
  • Haji Haruna Mulangwa v Shariff Osman (Civil Reference No. 3 of 2004)
  • Marko Matovu & 2 others v Mohammed Sseviri & another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1978)
  • Onyango Oloo v Attorney General [1986-1989] EA 456
  • Pascal R. Gakyaro v Civil Aviation Authority (Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2006)
  • Mpungu & Sons Transporters Ltd v Attorney General and Kambe Coffee Factory (Coach) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2001)
  • Russel v Nolfolk [1949] 1 All ER 109
  • Attorney General & Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and James Kamala (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Emminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Mukasa v Muwanga (Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 1994)
  • Desai v Warsama (1967) EA 351
  • Athanasius Kivumbi Lule v Hon. Emmanuel Pinto (Constitutional Petition No. 05 of 1997)
  • Mubiru & others v Kayiwa (1979) HCB 212
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Attorney General & Hass Agencies K (Ltd) (Constitutional Petition No. 03 of 2008)
  • Magdeline Makinta Vs. Fostina Nkwe, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 26/2002
  • Odneste Monanyana Vs. the State, Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2001
  • Major (Rtd.) Ronald Kakooza Mutale v Balisigara Stephen (Consolidated Civil Applications Nos. 121 and 277 of 2020)
  • Sunita Jain Vs. Pawar Kumar Jain & others, Case No. 174 of 2008
  • Mundrugo Richard v Alum Santa & another (Miscellaneous Application No. 166 of 2023)
  • Behari Vs. Majid (1901) I LR 24 All 138
  • Mangharan Chuharmel Vs. BC Patel (1972) I LR Born 30
  • Toponidhee Vs. Sreeputty (1880) I LR 5 Cal 832
  • Bharasi Vs. Sarat Chunder (1896) I LR 23 Cal 415
  • Dison Okumu & 7 others v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company & 6 others (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2020)
  • Mubende Parents School Ltd v Uganda Development Bank Ltd & 2 others (Civil Suit No. 662 of 2015)
  • Trade Bank Ltd v LZ Engineering Construction Ltd [2000] 1 EA 266
  • Mukisa Biscuits Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • R- Benkay Nigeria Ltd Vs. Cadbury Nigerian PLC SC 29 of 2006
  • Madhu Jajoo Vs. State Bank of Rajasthan, AIR 1999 Raj 1
  • Rock Petroleum (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2017)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Rock Petroleum (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 707 of 2012)
  • Simpson's Sale (London) Limited v Henderson Corporation [1964] All ER 833
  • Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services [1972] EA 162
  • Ssemogerere & Zachary Olum v Attorney General [2004] 1 EA 318
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blankets Manufacturers (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Ghulam Hussein Habib Virani & another (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
  • Pardhan v Osman (1969) EA 528
  • Bogere Moses & Kamba Robert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General v Akello & 8 Others (Miscellaneous Application 38 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 10 (17 January 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.