Wakilii

Attorney General v Ouma (HCT-04-CV-MISC. APPEAL 003 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCD 152 · 2013 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation ruling in Miscellaneous Application 0095 of 2012
Decision
Appeal partially allowed; taxation ruling varied with specific amounts taxed off and instruction fees reduced

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 costs awarded by a taxing officer must be limited to those ordered by the judge who heard the matter. The taxing officer erred in including costs incurred at the tribunal in Busia, as these were not covered by the judge's order and the tribunal is governed by different rules outside the ordinary judicial hierarchy. Instruction fees of UGX 160,000,000 were excessive and reduced to UGX 60,000,000 total. Where multiple defendants exist, each bears costs jointly and severally to the extent presented in the bill and approved by the taxing master.

Outcome

Appeal partially allowed; taxation ruling varied with specific amounts taxed off and instruction fees reduced

Facts

The respondent successfully obtained costs following a judicial review application (Misc. Application 0095 of 2012). The Registrar, acting as taxing officer, taxed the respondent's bill of costs and allowed instruction fees totaling UGX 160,000,000 for challenging tribunal findings in the High Court, UGX 120,000,000 for defending the respondent at the tribunal in Busia, UGX 30,000,000 for perusal of a petition at the tribunal, and UGX 2,000,000 for four counsels to attend the tribunal. The total taxed costs allowed were UGX 293,324,400 against the 2nd Appellant and UGX 284,592,400 against the 1st Appellant. The appellants challenged the taxation on grounds that costs for tribunal proceedings were not ordered by the judge, that instruction fees were excessive, and that certain costs were duplicated between the two appellants.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer erred in law and fact by awarding taxed costs to the Respondent's Bill of costs for costs incurred at the tribunal in Busia against the Appellants.
  2. Whether the taxing master erred in law and fact when he awarded excessive costs of one hundred and sixty million shillings as instruction fees for challenging the tribunal findings in the High Court.
  3. Whether the taxing master erred when he granted costs to the Respondent against 1st Appellant when the Respondent had been granted costs by consent in the Respondent's Bill of costs against 2nd Appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part.
  • Instruction fees for counsel to defend respondent at the tribunal in Busia of UGX 120,000,000 taxed off.
  • Costs for perusal of petition against respondent at Busia of UGX 30,000,000 taxed off.
  • Taxed costs allowed to four counsels to attend tribunal in Busia of UGX 2,000,000 taxed off.
  • Instruction fees reduced from UGX 160,000,000 to UGX 60,000,000 (reduction of UGX 50,000,000 per item 5).
  • Total taxed costs against 2nd Appellant reduced from UGX 293,324,400 to UGX 91,324,400.
  • Total taxed costs against 1st Appellant reduced from UGX 284,592,400 to UGX 82,592,400.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Scope of Taxing Officer's Jurisdiction
A taxing officer's jurisdiction is limited to taxing costs that have been allowed by the judge who heard the matter. The taxing officer cannot tax costs not covered by the judge's order, even if those costs relate to proceedings that formed the background to the application before the judge.
Judicial Review — Costs — Tribunal Proceedings Not Part of Judicial Review Costs
Costs incurred in tribunal proceedings cannot be inferred as incidental costs to a judicial review application where the judge did not expressly order such costs. Tribunal proceedings are governed by different rules and are not part of the ordinary judicial hierarchy, and costs incurred therein cannot be taxed by the Registrar of the High Court under section 80 of the Advocates Act in a judicial review application.
Costs — Taxation — Assessment of Instruction Fees — Novelty and Complexity
In assessing instruction fees, the court considers the novelty, complexity, and importance of the matter. Where a matter is complex, novel, and highly involving, instruction fees may exceed the minimum provided in Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules. A reasonable multiplier may be applied to the minimum fees to reflect the level of complexity and importance.
Costs — Multiple Defendants — Joint and Several Liability
Where there are multiple defendants, each defendant bears the costs of reimbursing the plaintiff for costs that their conduct occasioned to the plaintiff. Each defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the costs concerned, and the taxation rules apply to each defendant according to the bill presented before the taxing officer.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Solo Electrics (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
  • Republic v Minister of Agriculture ex parte W Nguguna and Others (2006) 1 EA 359

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General v Ouma (HCT-04-CV-MISC. APPEAL 003_2013) [2013] UGHCCD 152 (13 November 2013)
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.