Wakilii

Bank Of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application 23 of 1999)

Supreme Court · [2000] UGSC 3 · 2000 Reference Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single judge of the Supreme Court, under Rule 105(1), from the taxing officer's decision on taxation of a bill of costs
Decision
Reference allowed; instruction fees on items 1 and 5 of the bill of costs substantially reduced

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 14 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.

Good law Followed in 14 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 88 citing cases on record, 29 in the most recent three data years. 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

On a reference from taxation, the Supreme Court held that the taxing officer erred in principle by treating the monetary claim in the principal suit as the "amount involved in the appeal" under paragraph 9(2) of the Third Schedule, when that claim was not an issue to be determined in the appeal. The appeals concerned only whether sufficient cause was shown for failure to provide security for costs and were therefore interlocutory. The instruction fees were manifestly excessive, permitting an inference of error of principle. The reference was allowed: item 1 was reduced from Shs.200,000,000/= to Shs.7,000,000/= and item 5 from Shs.6,000,000/= to Shs.300,000/=, with costs of the reference to the defendant.

Outcome

Reference allowed; instruction fees on items 1 and 5 of the bill of costs substantially reduced

Facts

Banco Arabe Espanol sued Bank of Uganda in the High Court to recover a debt of US$1,713,665.75. On Bank of Uganda's application, the court ordered Banco Arabe to provide security for costs; on its failure to do so in time, the suit was dismissed under Order 23 r.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, but was later reinstated. Bank of Uganda's appeal to the Court of Appeal against reinstatement succeeded; Banco Arabe's further appeal to the Supreme Court was allowed with costs. Banco Arabe filed a bill of costs taxed at Shs.206,433,000/=, including Shs.200,000,000/= (item 1, instruction fee to prosecute the appeal) and Shs.6,000,000/= (item 5, opposing Bank of Uganda's application for further security for costs in Civil Application No.20 of 1998). Bank of Uganda referred the taxation, contesting only items 1 and 5 as having been assessed on a wrong principle and as manifestly excessive.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer erred in principle by treating the monetary claim in the principal suit as the amount involved in the appeal when assessing the instruction fee.
  2. Whether the appeals against the dismissal and reinstatement of the suit were interlocutory or final.
  3. Whether the instruction fee of Shs.200,000,000/= allowed on item 1 (instructions to appeal) was manifestly excessive.
  4. Whether the instruction fee of Shs.6,000,000/= allowed on item 5 (opposing the application for further security for costs) was manifestly excessive.

Orders

  • Reference allowed.
  • Instruction fee on item 1 reduced from Shs.200,000,000/= to Shs.7,000,000/=.
  • Instruction fee on item 5 reduced from Shs.6,000,000/= to Shs.300,000/=.
  • Costs of the reference to the defendant (Bank of Uganda).

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Interference with the Taxing Officer's Discretion
Save in exceptional cases, a judge will not interfere with the taxing officer's assessment of a reasonable fee, since quantum of costs is a matter peculiarly within the taxing officer's experience; interference is warranted only where the taxing officer applied a wrong principle and that error substantially affected the assessment such that upholding it would cause injustice.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Meaning of "Amount Involved in the Appeal"
Under paragraph 9(2) of the Third Schedule to the Rules of the Court, the "amount involved in the appeal" is the amount in issue or to be determined in the appeal, not a monetary claim in the principal suit that is merely affected by the appeal's outcome; treating the latter as the amount involved is an error of principle.
Civil Procedure — Final and Interlocutory Orders — Test for Distinction
The test for whether an order is final or interlocutory is whether the order, as made, finally disposes of the rights of the parties; an order dismissing or reinstating a suit for failure to provide security for costs does not determine the parties' rights in the substantive dispute and is therefore interlocutory.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Manifestly Excessive Award as Evidence of Error of Principle
Where an instruction fee allowed by the taxing officer is manifestly excessive, the court may infer that a wrong principle was applied in arriving at the assessment, justifying interference.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Duty to Record Considerations
A taxing officer is not required to recite in the ruling every consideration listed in paragraph 9(2) on every item; failure to spell out a particular consideration does not by itself establish that the taxing officer was not alive to it.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — "Other Costs to be Allowed"
The reference in paragraph 9(2) to "the other costs to be allowed" means other costs in the same litigation, including costs in the lower courts where awarded, so as to give the taxing officer an overview of the costs of the whole litigation rather than a single segment.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.105(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court, Third Schedule, paragraph 9(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.23 r.2

Cases cited (10)

  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Civil Application No. 13 of 1999)
  • Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1995)
  • Patrick Makumbi & Another v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)
  • Kazzora v Rukuba (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1993)
  • TOTAL OIL PRODUCTS(EA) LTD vs NUAUTO LTD (1968) EA 611
  • BOZSON vs ALTRINGHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (1903) I.K.B 547
  • SALAMAN vs WARNER AND OTHERS (1891) IQB 734
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • PREMCHAND RAICHAND vs QUARRY SERVICES (No.3) (1972) EA 162
  • Simpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd vs. Herdon Corporation (1964) 3 All ER. 833

Cases citing this judgment (30)

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.

Bank Of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application 23 of 1999) [2000] UGSC 3 (19 April 2000)
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.