Wakilii

Bank of Uganda v Sudhir Ruparalia and Another [2023] UGSC 12

Supreme Court · 2023 Reference Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single Justice of the Supreme Court from the rulings of the Registrar as taxing officer, under r.106(1) and (3), challenging the taxation of two bills of costs.
Decision
Taxation reference allowed; instruction fees drastically reduced, one bill of costs struck off, several items set aside, and item 48 remitted to the registrar for proper assessment.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 taxation reference, the Supreme Court held that under Paragraph 17 of the Third Schedule counsel representing two or more parties may not file more than one bill of costs; one of the two bills was struck off. The taxing officer erred in principle by treating the value of the principal suit as the amount involved in the appeal, when the true issue was the scope of a receiver's powers under the Financial Institutions Act. Instruction fees of UGX 45.86bn were manifestly excessive and reduced to UGX 500,000,000; interlocutory fees of UGX 50,000,000 each were reduced to UGX 5,000,000. VAT, drawings, copies, attendances, perusals and unproved disbursements were set aside. The reference succeeded.

Outcome

Taxation reference allowed; instruction fees drastically reduced, one bill of costs struck off, several items set aside, and item 48 remitted to the registrar for proper assessment.

Facts

Crane Bank Ltd was placed under statutory management, then receivership, by the Bank of Uganda under the Financial Institutions Act 2004. Crane Bank (in receivership) sued the respondents (HCCS No. 493 of 2017) to recover allegedly misappropriated money and certificates of title. The High Court dismissed the suit for lack of locus standi and cause of action; appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2020) followed, alongside numerous interlocutory applications. The appellant later withdrew the appeal, which was dismissed with costs to the respondents. The respondents filed two separate bills of costs (Taxation Applications No. 6 and 7 of 2022). The taxing officer (the Registrar) dismissed the applicant's preliminary objection to the two bills and taxed each at UGX 54,185,433,421, totalling UGX 108,370,866,842, basing instruction fees on the value of the principal suit's subject matter. The Bank of Uganda referred the taxation to a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Issues

  1. Whether it is permissible to file separate bills of costs where the same counsel represented more than one party.
  2. Whether the taxing officer erred in law or principle when taxing the bills of costs, in particular in assessing the quantum of instruction fees.
  3. Whether the taxing officer erred in assessing and allowing amounts for drawings, copies, attendances, perusals, disbursements and VAT.

Orders

  • The taxing officer's decision overruling the preliminary objection is set aside.
  • The taxing officer's decision making double awards of fees is set aside; the bill of costs in Taxation Application No. 6 of 2022 is struck off.
  • Instruction fees in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2020 are set at UGX 500,000,000.
  • Instruction fees for interlocutory matters are set at UGX 5,000,000 per matter.
  • The award of VAT is set aside and a new VAT at 18% is set on items 1-5.
  • Items 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 29 and 30 under drawings, and items 32-47, are set aside.
  • Item 48 (disbursements) is remitted to the registrar for proper assessment.
  • Costs of the Taxation Reference are awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Bills of Costs — Multiple Parties Represented by the Same Advocate
Under Paragraph 17 of the Third Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules, where the same advocate is employed for two or more parties, counsel may not file more than one bill of costs; any extra costs arising from separate proceedings must be included in a single bill for the taxing officer to assess for necessity and propriety.
Costs — Taxation Reference — Grounds for Judicial Interference with the Taxing Officer's Discretion
A judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of a reasonable fee save in exceptional cases, namely where the taxing officer applied a wrong principle (which may be inferred from a manifestly excessive or low award) and the error substantially affected the quantum so that upholding it would cause injustice.
Costs — Instruction Fees — Meaning of "the Amount Involved in the Appeal"
The amount involved in an appeal, for assessing instruction fees, is the value of the matter that was an issue or question for determination in the appeal; the monetary value of a principal suit not heard on its merits is not the amount involved where the appeal turned on a distinct legal question.
Costs — Taxation — Drawings, Copies, Attendances and Perusals Subsumed in Instruction Fees
Under Paragraphs 9(4) and 10 of the Third Schedule, fees for attendances, perusals, correspondence and copies are subsumed within the instruction fee, and additional fees for copies may only be allowed where more than one party, each employing a separate advocate, must be served.
Costs — Taxation — Disbursements and VAT — Proof Required
Disbursements may not be allowed on taxation unless receipts are produced and the disbursements have been paid; VAT may not be assessed without production of the advocate's VAT certificate of registration at the time of taxation.
Statutory Interpretation — Plain Meaning Rule and the Conjunctive "And"
Where statutory words are plain and unambiguous they must be given their natural and ordinary meaning, and the word "and" generally bears a cumulative sense requiring fulfilment of all conditions it joins, consistent with the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (21)

  • John Kafeero Sentongo v Shell and Uganda Petroleum Co Ltd (Civil Reference No. 1 of 2008)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers Ltd (Civil Application No. 77 of 1993)
  • Concorp International Ltd v Eastern and Southern Africa Trade and Development Bank (Supreme Court Reference No. 7 of 2013)
  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2008)
  • Raichand v Quarry Services of East Africa Limited [1972] EA 162
  • Nalumansi v Lule (Civil Application No. 12 of 1992)
  • Hashjam v Zanab [1954] EA 255
  • Kabonda v Kananura Melvin Consulting Engineers (Civil Application No. 24 of 1993)
  • Makimbi v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd [1990-1994] 1 EA 306
  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Services Limited (2000) 2 EA 236
  • Mwutanga Kirumbi v Attorney General (Civil Reference No. 38 of 2011)
  • Mbale Resort Hotel (U) Ltd v Babcon (U) Limited (Civil Reference No. 18 of 2018)
  • First American Bank of Kenya v Shah [2002] 1 EA 64
  • Electoral Commission v Kidega Nabinson James (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2016)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Abley v Dale, 20 L.J.C.P (N.S) 233 [1851]
  • Duport Steel vs Sirs, QBD 1980
  • Ishwar Singh Bindra v State of U.P, AIR 1968 SC 1450
  • Ibori V. Ogburu [2004] 15 NWLR (PT.895)
  • Chief S. O Adedayo & Ors. v. People Democratic Party & Ors. (2013) LPELR-20342(SC)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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 Sudhir Ruparalia and Another [2023] UGSC 12 (5 May 2023)
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.