Wakilii

Attorney General v Kamoga and Another (Civil Application No. 02 of 2008)

Supreme Court · [2009] UGSC 46 · 2009 Application Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single judge of the Supreme Court from the taxing officer's ruling on the respondents' bill of costs
Decision
Application allowed; instructions fee reduced from Shs.70,000,000 to Shs.17,500,000 and total costs reduced to Shs.17,918,500

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Attorney General referred to a single judge the taxing officer's award of Shs.70,000,000 as instructions fee for defending an appeal. The court held that the taxing officer erred in treating the value of the suit land, as stated in a valuation report, as "the amount involved in the appeal." Following Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol, the relevant amount is only that which was an issue or question for determination in the appeal; the value of the suit land was not such an issue. The award was so manifestly excessive as to indicate an error of principle. The application was allowed and the instructions fee reduced to Shs.17,500,000, with costs of the reference awarded to the applicant.

Outcome

Application allowed; instructions fee reduced from Shs.70,000,000 to Shs.17,500,000 and total costs reduced to Shs.17,918,500

Facts

The respondents had sued in the High Court for a declaration that they were the lawful registered proprietors of freehold land at Mbuya Hill, Kampala. A consent judgment was entered in their favour before the Deputy Registrar. The applicant's application to review and set aside that consent judgment succeeded before Katutsi J, but the Court of Appeal restored the consent judgment, and the applicant's further appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed with costs. The respondents' bill of costs was taxed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court as taxing officer, who allowed Shs.70,000,000 as instructions fee out of a total of Shs.70,418,500, relying in part on a valuation report putting the value of the suit land at Shs.1,293,000,000. The Attorney General referred the taxation to a single judge, contesting only the instructions fee allowed in item 1 of the bill of costs.

Issues

  1. What constitutes "the amount involved in the appeal" for the purpose of assessing an instructions fee under paragraph 9(2) of the Third Schedule to the Rules of the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the taxing officer erred in principle by taking into account the value of the suit land stated in a valuation report.
  3. Whether the instructions fee of Shs.70,000,000 was so manifestly excessive as to warrant interference.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Instructions fee reduced from Shs.70,000,000 to Shs.17,500,000.
  • Total costs reduced from Shs.70,418,500 to Shs.17,918,500.
  • Costs of the reference, set at Shs.3,000,000, awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instructions Fee — Meaning of "the amount involved in the appeal"
The "amount involved in the appeal" for the purpose of assessing an instructions fee is the amount that was an issue or question to be determined in the appeal, and not the monetary value of the subject matter of the principal suit.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Reference/Review — Interference with the taxing officer's discretion
A judge will interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of quantum only where the officer erred on a principle; such error may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate, and only where the error substantially affected the decision and upholding it would cause injustice.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instructions Fee — Manifestly excessive award
An instructions fee that is so manifestly excessive as to indicate an error of principle warrants the court's interference and reduction to a fair and reasonable sum, consistent with the duty to keep costs at a level that does not restrict access to court to only the wealthy.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services (1972) EA 192
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 33 of 1999)
  • Alexander Okello v Kayondo & Co. Advocates (Civil Application No. 01 of 1997)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General v Kamoga and Another (Civil Application No. 02 of 2008) [2009] UGSC 46 (10 February 2009)
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.