Wakilii

Block Estates Limited v Mohamed (Reference, in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 178 · 1955 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference by way of objection to taxing officer's decision on instruction fee quantum under Rules of Court Part XIV rule 7(1)
Decision
Objection to taxing officer's decision dismissed; instruction fee of Sh. 4,250 upheld

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 Court will not interfere with a taxing officer's discretion on quantum unless the sum allowed is so large that the Court is driven to conclude the officer acted upon wrong principles. Merely because an instruction fee appears extremely high does not automatically mean it was arrived at on wrong principles. Where the appeal involved novel points of law under new legislation, required substantial preparation, and the taxing officer was aware of the nature and importance of the matter, the Court could not say wrong principles were applied. Reference dismissed.

Outcome

Objection to taxing officer's decision dismissed; instruction fee of Sh. 4,250 upheld

Facts

Block Estates Limited successfully appealed a magistrate's decision under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1954, the first appeal under that new legislation. The appeal concerned both the period of a new tenancy (14 months) and monthly rent (£100) granted to the tenant. The appeal involved novel points of law regarding the general objects of the Ordinance and what matters magistrates should consider when granting new tenancies. Arguments took a full day and a half and resulted in a 34-page judgment of wide scope. The appellant's advocate submitted an instruction fee of Sh. 7,500. The taxing officer taxed off Sh. 3,250, leaving Sh. 4,250. The respondent objected to this figure as excessively high and referred the matter to a judge under rule 7(1) of Part XIV, Rules of Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should interfere with the taxing officer's discretion in allowing an instruction fee of Sh. 4,250 where the objector contended it was excessively high.

Orders

  • Reference dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Principles for Judicial Interference
The Court will not interfere with the discretion of a taxing officer on a question of quantum unless it appears that the sum allowed is so large, having regard to the nature of the proceeding, that the Court is driven to the conclusion that the taxing officer must have acted upon a wrong principle, and will only interfere in exceptional cases.
Taxation of Costs — High Instruction Fees — Presumption of Wrong Principles
Merely because an instruction fee is taxed at a figure which appears to be extremely high and far higher than the Court itself would have allowed, the Court will not automatically presume that the figure was arrived at upon wrong principles where there is nothing to show that this was so.
Taxation of Costs — Taxing Officer's Discretion — Nature and Importance of Matter
A taxing officer has discretion to take into account the nature and importance of the cause or matter when determining instruction fees, and where the officer was well aware of these factors from the record and arguments, the Court will not interfere unless it can say the officer manifestly acted upon wrong principles.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Rules of Court Part XIV rule 7(1)
  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1954

Cases cited (1)

  • Mohanlal Kalyanjee v M M Stores (1950) 24 (1) KLR 47

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Block Estates Limited v Mohamed (Reference, in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1955) [1955] EACA 178 (1 January 1955)
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.