Wakilii

Buregyeya & Another v Arinatwe (Civil Appeal 36 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 163 · 2024 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation ruling of Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Award of UgX 7,887,600/= set aside; matter remitted to a different taxing master for retaxation under the 1996 rules

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

Held that taxation of costs is governed by the law in force at the time judgment was delivered, not when the bill is filed for taxation. The suit was filed in 2012 and judgment delivered in 2014, therefore the applicable law was the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 1996. The 2018 regulations contain no saving provisions and statutes do not operate retrospectively unless expressly stated. The taxing master erred in deploying a hybrid approach combining both old and new rules. Award set aside and matter remitted for retaxation under the 1996 rules.

Outcome

Award of UgX 7,887,600/= set aside; matter remitted to a different taxing master for retaxation under the 1996 rules

Facts

The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 86 of 2012 on 15 March 2012 against the defendants. Judgment was delivered on 24 September 2014 in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed their bill of costs for taxation on 1 October 2019. The taxing master, faced with a bill drawn under the 2018 taxation rules, adopted a hybrid approach combining the old 1996 rules and the new 2018 rules to avoid what he perceived as injustice to the judgment debtor. He taxed the bill at UgX 7,887,600. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the taxing master erred by failing to apply the 2018 rules which had replaced the 1996 rules. The respondent did not file a reply to the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer erred in law and fact when he failed to properly apply known principles of taxation.
  2. Whether the bill of costs should be taxed under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 1996 or the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018.
  3. Whether the taxing officer's hybrid approach to taxation was proper in law.

Orders

  • The award of UgX 7,887,600/= is hereby set aside.
  • An order is hereby issued that the bill in Civil Suit No. 0086 of 2012 be retaxed before a different Taxing Master.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Applicable Law — Temporal Application of Taxation Rules
Liability to pay costs accrues when the court makes an order for costs, and the process of taxation is only to determine the quantum. The law applicable at taxation is the law in force at the time the order for costs was made, not the law in force when the bill is filed for taxation.
Statutory Interpretation — Retrospectivity — Absence of Saving Provisions
Unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation. Where a statute is amended while a matter is pending, the rights of the parties must be decided in accordance with the statutory provisions in force at the time of institution of the action unless the legislature states in clear and unequivocal terms that the provision should have retrospective effect.
Taxation of Costs — Grounds for Judicial Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion
A judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of costs save in exceptional cases: where the taxing officer applied a wrong principle (which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low), and only if the error substantially affected the decision on quantum such that upholding the amount would cause injustice.
Taxation of Costs — Hybrid Approach — Application of Multiple Statutory Regimes
A taxing officer errs in law by deploying a hybrid approach that combines provisions from superseded taxation rules with current rules. Where new rules replace old rules without saving provisions, only the new rules apply to bills filed after the commencement date, but bills relating to judgments delivered before the commencement date must be taxed under the old rules to avoid retrospective application.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Advocates Act s.62(1)
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations SI 1267-5 r.2(a)
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations SI 1267-5 r.3(c)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules SI No. 3 of 1996
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI No. 7 of 2018

Cases cited (4)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanal (SC Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority v Edulink Holdings Ltd and 2 Others (HCCA No. 178 of 2021)
  • Mayanja Joshua and 70 Others v Wante Samuel and 60 Others (HCCS No. 497 of 2018)
  • Uganda Bankers (Employers Association) v National Union of Clerical Commercial Professionals and Technical Employees (CACA No. 51 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Buregyeya & Another v Arinatwe (Civil Appeal 36 of 2020) [2024] UGHC 163 (27 March 2024)
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.