Wakilii

Brenda Nabukenya v Rebecca Nalwanga Balwana (Taxation Reference No. 208 of 2014)

Court of Appeal · [2015] UGCA 2029 · 2015 Reference Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single Justice from the decision of the taxing officer on a bill of costs
Decision
Reference granted; taxed bill of costs reduced to UGX 25,000,000

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

The Court held that Rule 110(5) permits a taxation reference to be commenced informally or by letter, so the preliminary objection that the reference was improperly instituted failed. On the merits, the Court found the instruction fees manifestly excessive given the straightforward nature of the election petition appeal and cross-appeal, reducing them to UGX 15,000,000 (appeal) and UGX 10,000,000 (cross-appeal). Applying Rule 13 of the Third Schedule, because more than a quarter of the profit costs had been taxed off, the costs of drawing, filing, serving and attending taxation should have been disallowed. The total bill was reduced to UGX 25,000,000.

Outcome

Reference granted; taxed bill of costs reduced to UGX 25,000,000

Facts

The appellant was the unsuccessful party in Election Petition Appeal No. 7 of 2012 but partially succeeded on the cross-appeal. The respondent was awarded costs on the appeal and a quarter of the costs of the cross-appeal. The respondent filed a bill of costs on 8 April 2014 totalling UGX 230,944,700. The matter was fixed for hearing and the parties agreed to attempt a consensus and report to court on 11 June 2014. On that date the Registrar proceeded ex parte. On 17 December 2014 the taxing officer taxed and allowed the bill at UGX 90,267,800, awarding instruction fees of UGX 60,000,000 each for the appeal and cross-appeal despite finding the matter straightforward. The appellant sought a reference challenging the instruction fees as manifestly excessive and the allowance of attendance, drawing, filing and service costs.

Issues

  1. Whether a valid taxation reference was before the Court given the manner of its commencement under the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. Whether the instruction fees awarded by the taxing officer were manifestly excessive.
  3. Whether the costs of attendance, drawing, filing, service and transport were properly allowed where more than a quarter of the bill was taxed off.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Ground 1 succeeds; instruction fees reduced to UGX 15,000,000 for the appeal and UGX 10,000,000 for the cross-appeal.
  • Ground 2 succeeds; items 11, 16 and 18 disallowed.
  • Application granted and final costs allowed at UGX 25,000,000.
  • Parties to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation References — Mode of Commencement under Rule 110
A reference against a taxation may be made to the Registrar informally at the time of taxation or in writing within seven days thereafter, and the procedure for general applications by notice of motion under Rule 43(1) does not apply; rules of procedure are handmaidens of justice and minor drafting anomalies causing no prejudice will not defeat a reference.
Costs — Taxation — Assessment of Instruction Fees — Manifestly Excessive Awards
Where the nature, importance and difficulty of a case are not extraordinary, an award of instruction fees that is manifestly excessive will be varied on reference, having regard to the guiding principles under Rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule.
Election Petitions — Costs — Restraint to Protect Democratic Participation
Costs in election petitions should not be used as a weapon against political opponents; courts must balance the remuneration of advocates and successful litigants against the need to develop democratic principles encouraging active political participation.
Costs — Taxation — Effect of Taxing Off More Than a Quarter of Profit Costs
Under Rule 13 of the Third Schedule, where more than one quarter of the profit costs claimed is disallowed on taxation, the costs of drawing, filing and serving the bill and of attending taxation must be disallowed.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • A.K.P.M Lutaaya v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 1 of 2007)
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Hasa Agencies (K) Ltd (Civil Application No. 1 of 2011)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Patrick Makumbi & Anor v Sole Electronics (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Obiga Mario Kania v Electoral Commission & Anor (Civil Reference No. 169 of 2012)
  • Lanyero Sarah Ochieng & Anor v Lanyero Molly (Civil Reference No. 225 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Brenda Nabukenya v Rebecca Nalwanga Balwana (Taxation Reference No. 208 of 2014) [2015] UGCA 2029 (17 March 2015)
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.