Wakilii

Bank Of Baroda (Uganda) Limited v Crown Converters Limited and Others [2025] UGHC 1594

High Court · 2025 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from Taxing Master's awards of instruction fees in Civil Suit No. 0251 of 2011
Decision
Taxation appeal allowed. Taxing Master's awards set aside and matter remitted for reassessment in accordance with the 6th Schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 2018.

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 allowed the taxation appeal, holding that the Taxing Master erred in principle by failing to ascertain special damages pleaded in the plaint when assessing instruction fees for the defence, and by excluding court-awarded interest from the value of the subject matter when assessing instruction fees for the counterclaim. The court held that the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 2018 applied, as costs are assessed under the law in force when the order for costs is made. The matter was remitted to the Taxing Master for reassessment applying the 6th Schedule formula to the pleaded special damages and the full decretal amount including interest.

Outcome

Taxation appeal allowed. Taxing Master's awards set aside and matter remitted for reassessment in accordance with the 6th Schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 2018.

Facts

The 1st and 2nd Respondents instituted Civil Suit No. 0251 of 2011 against the Appellant bank seeking declaratory orders and special damages of Ugx 5,882,697,758 and USD 1,017,471. The Appellant filed a counterclaim for recovery of outstanding loans totalling Ugx 576,113,648, USD 416,644.62, and Ugx 626,748,312 with specified interest rates. On 27 November 2020, judgment was delivered dismissing the suit with costs and entering judgment on the counterclaim in favour of the Appellant for all amounts claimed including interest from 1 August 2011. The Appellant filed a bill of costs for taxation. On 7 November 2022, the Taxing Master awarded instruction fees of Ugx 100,000,000 for the defence and Ugx 59,546,296.46 for the counterclaim. The Taxing Master found that the plaint did not set forth recoverable amounts and exercised discretion for the defence fee, and excluded court-awarded interest from the counterclaim value. The Appellant appealed, contending the awards were manifestly low and that the Taxing Master erred in not applying the 6th Schedule formula to the pleaded special damages and the full decretal amount including interest.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Master erred in assessing the instruction fees for the defence of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 0251 of 2011.
  2. Whether the Taxing Master erred in excluding interest awarded on the counterclaim from the value of the subject matter for the purpose of assessing instruction fees on the counterclaim.
  3. What law applies to the taxation of costs where the suit was filed in 2011, judgment delivered in 2020, and taxation conducted in 2022.

Orders

  • The Taxing Master's award of Ugx 100,000,000/= as instruction fees for the defence of the suit is set aside.
  • The matter is remitted back to the Taxing Master with a direction to re-assess the instruction fees for the suit by ascertaining the special damages pleaded in paragraph 7(o) and prayers (ix) and (xii) of the plaint and applying the 6th Schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules accordingly.
  • The Taxing Master's award of Ugx 59,545,296.46 as instruction fees for the counterclaim is set aside.
  • The matter is remitted back to the Taxing Master with a direction to re-assess the instruction fees for the counterclaim by including the awarded interest as part of the amount recovered or value of the subject matter for the purpose of applying the 6th Schedule.
  • The costs of this appeal shall be borne by the 1st, 2nd and 4th Respondents.
  • The 3rd Respondent shall bear their own costs in this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Applicable Law — Temporal Application
Costs are assessed in accordance with the law in force at the time the order for costs is made or the taxation is conducted, not the law in force when the suit was filed. Where judgment awarding costs was delivered in 2020 and taxation conducted in 2022, the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 2018 apply.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Determination of Value of Subject Matter from Pleadings
Where special damages are specifically pleaded with particularized monetary amounts in the body of the plaint, the value of the subject matter can be determined from the pleadings for purposes of assessing instruction fees under the 6th Schedule. The term 'pleadings' encompasses the entire plaint, not just the prayers in isolation. A taxing officer errs in principle by exercising discretion to award instruction fees where the value is clearly ascertainable from the pleadings.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Inclusion of Interest in Value of Subject Matter
For the purpose of calculating instruction fees under the 6th Schedule, the 'amount recovered' or 'value of the subject matter' includes all sums that the successful party is legally entitled to recover under the judgment, including both the principal sum and accrued interest awarded by the court. Interest specifically claimed, awarded, and accrued over a significant period forms an integral part of the debt successfully recovered and must be included when assessing instruction fees for a counterclaim.
Taxation of Costs — Appellate Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion — Principles
A court will interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of instruction fees only in exceptional cases: where it is shown that the taxing officer applied a wrong principle, or where the amount awarded is manifestly excessive or manifestly low. Even where error in principle is established, the court should interfere only if satisfied that the error substantially affected the quantum and that upholding the amount would cause injustice.
Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules — 6th Schedule — Mandatory Application Where Value Ascertainable
Paragraph 1(1) of the 6th Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules prescribes a mandatory formula for assessing instruction fees where the claim or value of the subject matter can be determined from the pleadings, settlement, valuation, or judgment. The taxing officer retains discretion to determine a reasonable fee only where the value cannot be determined from any of these sources.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1999)
  • Simbamanyo Estates Limited and Another v Equity Bank Uganda Ltd and Others (High Court Civil Appeal Nos. 16 & 24 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bank Of Baroda (Uganda) Limited v Crown Converters Limited and Others 2025 UGHC 1594 (21 August 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.