Wakilii

Bahimbisomwe v Rwabinumi (Civil Reference 1 of 2009)

Court of Appeal · [2009] UGCA 62 · 2009 Reference Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single justice against the taxation of a bill of costs by the taxing officer
Decision
Reference allowed; bill of costs as claimed in the sum of UGX 22,359,000 allowed

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

On a reference against taxation, the single justice held that the taxing officer misapplied the principles governing taxation under rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule to the Court of Appeal Rules. The officer wrongly treated the divorce appeal as simple and the suit value as unascertainable, and improperly reduced instruction fees on the assumption the respondent could not pay. Considering the substantial property value, the complexity and novelty of the appeal, inflation, and the need to fairly reimburse a successful litigant, the court found the claim of UGX 20,000,000 as instruction fees modest. The reference succeeded and the full bill as claimed was allowed.

Outcome

Reference allowed; bill of costs as claimed in the sum of UGX 22,359,000 allowed

Facts

The applicant lodged a bill of costs in the Court of Appeal following Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2007, which arose from a divorce petition decided in her favour in the High Court. Her claim of UGX 22,359,000 was reduced by the taxing officer to UGX 3,721,400, with instruction fees taxed down to UGX 3,000,000 from the UGX 20,000,000 claimed. The taxing officer reasoned that the appeal was simple, the value of the suit was unascertainable, the respondent could not afford higher costs, and the disputed properties were dilapidated. The appeal had concerned the grant of divorce, maintenance of a child, and division of substantial matrimonial property including land, vehicles, a business and homes. Counsel contended the suit property was worth around UGX 300,000,000, warranting professional fees of 5–10% of that value. The applicant was dissatisfied and referred the taxation to a single justice.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer awarded meagre and inadequate costs to the applicant.
  2. Whether the taxing officer wrongly applied the principles governing taxation of a bill of costs.
  3. Whether the taxing officer exhibited bias against the applicant.

Orders

  • The reference succeeds.
  • The Bill of Costs as claimed in UGX 22,359,000 is allowed.
  • The costs of this application are awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Exercise of Taxing Officer's Discretion under rule 9(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules
A taxing officer's discretion to determine reasonable instruction fees must be exercised judiciously by weighing the amount involved, the nature, importance and difficulty of the appeal, the interest of the parties and all relevant circumstances; where the guiding principles are misconstrued or misapplied, or extraneous matters are taken into account, an appellate court will interfere.
Costs — Taxation — Valuation of Suit where Subject Matter is Difficult to Quantify
Where the value of the suit is difficult to ascertain, the taxing officer nonetheless has a statutory duty to make a reasonable estimate and arrive at a reasonable award; treating a matter as having no ascertainable value is not a proper basis for awarding low instruction fees.
Costs — Taxation — Guiding Principles
In taxing costs the court must ensure costs are not so high as to confine access to the courts to the wealthy, that a successful litigant is fairly reimbursed, that remuneration attracts recruits to the profession, that awards are consistent with recent comparable awards, and that the value of money and inflation at the time of the award are taken into account.
Costs — Taxation — Ability of Losing Party to Pay as Irrelevant Consideration
A taxing officer may not reduce an otherwise reasonable award of instruction fees on the assumption that the losing party is unable to pay where there is no evidence on record to support that assumption.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (10)

  • Mukula International LTD vs Cardinal Nsubuga (1982) H.C.B. 11 [CA(UG)]
  • Patrick Makumbi and Another v Sole Electric (Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)
  • UDB vs Muganga Construction Company LTD (1981) H.CB. 35
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
  • DFCU Bank vs Wanda Poll Bus Civil Application of 1998
  • Kintu Muwonge vs Myllious Galabusa, Divorce Appeal 135/1998 [HCT]
  • Chapman vs Chapman [1969] ALL ER 96
  • Gissing vs Gissing [1970] 2 ALL ER 797
  • Falconer vs Falconer [1970] 3 ALL ER 449
  • Ileichand Ltd vs Quarry Services [1972] E.A.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bahimbisomwe v Rwabinumi (Civil Reference 1 of 2009) [2009] UGCA 62 (11 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.