Wakilii

Bank of Uganda v Sudhir Ruparalia and Another [2023] UGSC 18

Supreme Court · 2023 Taxation Reference Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a judge of the Supreme Court under r.106 from the taxing officer's ruling on taxation of two bills of costs
Decision
Taxation reference allowed; one bill of costs struck off, instruction fees reduced from UGX 45,860,682,730 to UGX 500,000,000 for the appeal and to UGX 5,000,000 per interlocutory matter, VAT recomputed and various items set aside.

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 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 2 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 4 citing cases on record, 4 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 under r.106, the court held that Paragraph 17 of the Third Schedule does not permit counsel representing two or more parties to file more than one bill of costs, so one of the two taxed bills was struck off. The taxing officer also misdirected herself by treating the monetary value of the principal suit as the "amount involved in the appeal" when the appeal concerned the scope of a receiver's powers; the instruction fee of UGX 45,860,682,730 was manifestly excessive and was reduced to UGX 500,000,000, and interlocutory fees to UGX 5,000,000 each. VAT, disbursements and various drawing, copy and perusal items were set aside. Reference allowed with costs to the applicant.

Outcome

Taxation reference allowed; one bill of costs struck off, instruction fees reduced from UGX 45,860,682,730 to UGX 500,000,000 for the appeal and to UGX 5,000,000 per interlocutory matter, VAT recomputed and various items set aside.

Facts

Crane Bank Ltd, a licensed financial institution, was placed under statutory management and then receivership by the Bank of Uganda under the Financial Institutions Act 2004. In June 2017 Crane Bank sued the respondents (HCCS No. 493 of 2017) to recover allegedly misappropriated money and freehold titles. The High Court dismissed the suit for lack of locus standi and cause of action. Appeals to the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2020) followed, accompanied by numerous interlocutory applications concerning control and liquidation of the company. The appeal to the Supreme Court was ultimately withdrawn with costs to the respondents. The respondents filed two separate bills of costs (Taxation Applications No. 6 and 7 of 2022), each taxed by the Registrar at UGX 54,185,433,421, totalling UGX 108,370,866,842, with instruction fees calculated at 10% of a subject-matter value of UGX 458,606,827,259. The Bank of Uganda referred the taxation to a judge, challenging the double bills, the instruction-fee basis, disbursements and VAT.

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 by relying on the value of the subject matter to assess instruction fees.
  3. Whether there was an error 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 of making double awards of fees is set aside.
  • 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 is set at 18% 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 is remitted to the registrar for proper consideration.
  • Costs of the Taxation Reference are awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Same advocate for two or more parties
Under Paragraph 17 of the Third Schedule to the Rules, an advocate employed for two or more parties may not file more than one bill of costs; any extra costs arising from separate proceedings taken by some of the parties must be included in that single bill for the taxing officer to examine and tax.
Statutory Interpretation — Plain meaning rule — Conjunctive effect of "and"
Where statutory words are plain and unambiguous they must be given their natural and ordinary meaning; the word "and" is cumulative, requiring fulfilment of all the conditions it joins together, and the express mention of one condition excludes its reverse (expressio unius est exclusio alterius).
Civil Procedure — Costs — Instruction fees — Meaning of "amount involved in the appeal"
The "amount involved in the appeal" for the purpose of assessing instruction fees is an amount that was itself an issue or question for determination in the appeal; the monetary value of the principal suit does not constitute the amount involved unless it was an issue in the appeal.
Civil Procedure — Reference on taxation — When a judge may interfere 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; interference is justified only where a wrong principle was applied (which may be inferred from a manifestly excessive or low award) and the error substantially affected the quantum so that upholding the amount would cause injustice.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Drawings, copies, attendances and perusals included in instruction fees
Attendances, correspondence, perusals and consulting authorities form part of the instruction fee under Paragraph 9; the drawing fee under Paragraph 10 includes the preparation of copies, and an additional fee for copies is only allowable where there is more than one party to serve who has employed more than one advocate.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Disbursements must be proved
Disbursements must be shown separately at the foot of the bill of costs, supported by receipts produced to the taxing officer at the time of taxation; a disbursement that has not been paid or proved at taxation cannot be allowed.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Value Added Tax — Proof of VAT registration
Before VAT may be allowed on a bill of costs, a VAT certificate of registration must be presented as proof of the law firm's registration status; allowing VAT in the absence of such a certificate at taxation is procedurally wrong.

Legislation cited (15)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.106(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.106(3)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Third Schedule paragraph 17
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Third Schedule paragraph 9(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Third Schedule paragraph 9(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Third Schedule paragraph 9(3)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Third Schedule paragraph 9(4)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Third Schedule paragraph 10
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Third Schedule paragraph 4
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Third Schedule paragraph 11(1)
  • Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.87(3)
  • Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.88(1)
  • Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.94
  • Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.99(1)
  • High Court (Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Cases cited (21)

  • John Kafeero Sentongo v Shell and Uganda Petroleum Co Ltd (Civil Reference No. 1 of 2008)
  • 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
  • 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 (Civil 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 and others [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 and another v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd [1990-1994] 1 EA 306
  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Services Limited (2000) 2 EA 236
  • Mwatanga 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 and others, [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)
  • 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 (2)

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 18 (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.