Baguma v Kunihira [2025] UGHC 747
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 a taxation appeal challenging costs awarded in an election petition was competently brought under Regulation 3(1) of the Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations. The court found that instruction fees of UGX 50,000,000 were manifestly excessive for a parliamentary election petition and reduced them to UGX 30,000,000. The court also revised downwards certain items for extra copies, finding that only three extra copies were necessary for a case with one petitioner and two respondents. The total bill of costs was reduced from UGX 67,170,000 to UGX 46,370,000.
Outcome
Bill of costs reduced from UGX 67,170,000 to UGX 46,370,000
Facts
The appellant contested the respondent's election as Woman Member of Parliament for Kyenjojo District in Election Petition No. 007 of 2021. The petition was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent. The respondent filed a bill of costs which was taxed and allowed at UGX 67,170,000, including instruction fees of UGX 50,000,000. The appellant challenged the taxation, arguing that the instruction fees were manifestly excessive, several items were duplicative, and certain expenses were not proven by receipts. The respondent defended the award, stating that the petition covered three constituencies (Mwenge North, Central, and South) and required extensive affidavit evidence from numerous polling stations, justifying the costs awarded.
Issues
- Whether the instant appeal is incompetent for having been brought using the wrong procedure.
- Whether the taxation was conducted in accordance with the Remuneration Rules, and if not, what is the appropriate re-assessment of costs.
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- The preliminary objection on procedural grounds is overruled.
- The taxation of Election Petition No. 007 of 2021 is reviewed and revised downwards.
- The Respondent's Bill of Costs is taxed and allowed at Uganda Shillings Forty-Six Million, Three Hundred Seventy Thousand Only (UGX 46,370,000).
- Each party shall bear their own costs for this application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
- Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
- Advocates Act Cap 267 s.62(1)
- Advocates Act Cap 295 s.68(1)
- Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations SI 267-5 Regulation 3(1)
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Sixth Schedule Rule 6
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Sixth Schedule Rule 10(1)
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Sixth Schedule Rule 10(2)
Cases cited (2)
- Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
- Mukesh Shukla Babubhai v Senyonyi (Taxation Appeal No. 6 of 2022)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.