Wakilii

Bukenya-Wasswa v Ssembatya (TAXATION APPEAL NO. 07 OF 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 97 · 2020 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from costs awarded in defamation suit
Decision
Bill of costs revised downwards; excessive items disallowed or reduced

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

A taxing master's award of costs can be varied on appeal where the taxing officer applied a wrong principle, which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low. The High Court found that the taxing master disregarded clear provisions of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 by allowing items not provided for and by miscalculating instruction fees, resulting in an excessive award. The appeal was allowed and the bill of costs adjusted downwards.

Outcome

Bill of costs revised downwards; excessive items disallowed or reduced

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment with costs in a defamation suit (Civil Suit No. 866 of 2017). On 2 April 2019, the taxing master taxed and allowed the respondent's bill of costs at UGX 8,497,000. The appellant contended that the costs were excessive, not in line with the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, and included items not provided for by law. The respondent argued that advocates had consented to most items and only instruction fees were disputed before the taxing master, and that costs were taxed to scale. The appellant specifically challenged instruction fees (Item 3), mediation-related costs (Items 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20), perusal of letters (Item 21), adjournment attendance (Item 23), photocopying and translation costs (Items 30, 50, 51, 52), and transport expenses (Items 53, 57, 58).

Issues

  1. Whether the costs taxed and allowed in the underlying defamation suit were excessive and should be revised downwards.
  2. Whether the taxing master applied the correct legal principles in allowing various items on the bill of costs.
  3. Whether costs were allowed for items not provided for under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Item 3 (instruction fees) reduced from UGX 2,500,000 to UGX 1,350,000.
  • Items 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 30, 50, 51, and 52 disallowed.
  • Item 23 reduced from UGX 100,000 to UGX 50,000.
  • Item 58 (plaintiff's transport expenses) reduced from UGX 4,600,000 to UGX 2,000,000.
  • The respondent's bill of costs adjusted to accommodate the above figures.
  • Each party to bear its own costs for this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Appeals — Standard of Review
A Judge will not alter a fee allowed by the taxing officer merely because in his opinion he should have allowed a higher or lower amount, save in exceptional cases where it is shown that the taxing officer applied a wrong principle, which can be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Application of Sixth Schedule
Where a taxing master disregards the mandatory provisions of Rule 1 Part C of the Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations in calculating instruction fees, the award is subject to revision on appeal.
Taxation of Costs — Allowable Items — Mediation Costs
The Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 do not provide for mediation costs, and items related to mediation proceedings are not allowable on taxation.
Taxation of Costs — Policy Rationale — Balance Between Remuneration and Access to Justice
The intention of taxation rules is to strike the right balance between allowing advocates adequate remuneration for their work and reducing costs to a reasonable level to protect the public from excessive fees and ensure access to justice.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations r.2
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule Part C r.1

Cases cited (3)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espaniol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Mugenyi v Hoima District Administration (Taxation Appeal No. 35 of 2017)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufactures (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bukenya-Wasswa v Ssembatya (TAXATION APPEAL NO. 07 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 97 (15 May 2020)
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.