Wakilii

Birungi Wilson v Akamba (U) Ltd [1995] UGSC 5

Supreme Court · 1995 Bill of Costs Taxed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of the respondent's bill of costs following a dismissed Supreme Court appeal
Decision
Respondent's bill of costs taxed ex parte and allowed at Shs 1,300,000

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 taxation of the respondent's bill of costs after the appellant's appeal was dismissed with costs, the taxing officer held that, the appellant's advocate having been duly served yet absent, the bill could be taxed ex parte under para 8 of the 3rd Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules. Considering the modest amount involved (about Shs 6.48m) and that the appeal was simple and raised no novel question, the instruction fee claimed at Shs 1,500,000 was reduced to Shs 1,200,000. Several items were disallowed as either not incurred or properly subsumed within the instruction fee. The bill was taxed and allowed at Shs 1,300,000.

Outcome

Respondent's bill of costs taxed ex parte and allowed at Shs 1,300,000

Facts

The appellant, Birungi Wilson, had appealed to the Supreme Court against a decision in H.C.C.S No. 152 of 1990, in which he had claimed about Shs 6,480,000 as special damages together with general damages and interest at 25% per annum for breach of contract. The suit was dismissed in the High Court, and the appeal was heard and dismissed with costs on 21 March 1995. The respondent, Akamba (U) Ltd, filed a bill of costs for taxation. At the taxation hearing the appellant's advocate, though duly served with a hearing notice, failed to appear, and the respondent applied for the bill to be taxed ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer should proceed to tax the bill of costs ex parte where the advocate for the appellant, though duly served, failed to appear.
  2. What amount of instruction fees and other costs the respondent was reasonably entitled to on taxation of the bill of costs.

Orders

  • Taxation to proceed ex parte notwithstanding the absence of the appellant's advocate.
  • Item 1 (instruction fee) allowed at Shs 1,200,000.
  • Item 2 disallowed.
  • Items 3 and 4 disallowed as covered under item 1.
  • Items 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 allowed at Shs 20,000 each.
  • Bill of costs taxed and allowed at Shs 1,300,000.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Ex parte taxation on default of appearance
Where a party or advocate duly served with a notice of taxation fails to appear at the date and time specified, the taxing officer may proceed to tax the bill of costs notwithstanding that absence.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Instruction fees — Factors in assessment
In assessing instruction fees a taxing officer has regard to the amount involved in the matter, the nature and complexity of the appeal, the strength of the grounds and the conduct of the parties, and may reduce a fee that is excessive relative to those factors.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Supreme Court Rules, 3rd Schedule, para 8
  • Supreme Court Rules, 3rd Schedule, para 9

Cases cited (1)

  • Patrick Nakumbi & Another v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Birungi Wilson v Akamba (U) Ltd [1995] UGSC 5 (9 August 1995)
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.