Wakilii

Byangasha alias Ndikumwami and Another v Habiyakare (Civil Appeal 8 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 73 · 2023 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from Chief Magistrate's taxation order
Decision
Taxation appeal partly allowed with reduction in taxed costs from UGX 12,489,500 to UGX 10,167,500

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 the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI No. 267-4 in force at the time the suit was filed in 2008 apply to taxation, not the 2018 amendment, as statutes do not have retrospective effect unless clearly intended. The instruction fees of UGX 4,000,000 were upheld as reasonable given the nine-year prosecution of the suit. However, UGX 2,315,000 was deducted from the taxed bill for items where counsel or plaintiff did not attend court as claimed, reducing the total award to UGX 10,167,500.

Outcome

Taxation appeal partly allowed with reduction in taxed costs from UGX 12,489,500 to UGX 10,167,500

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment in Civil Suit No. 11 of 2008 filed on 19 September 2008 and concluded on 6 June 2017 in the Kisoro Chief Magistrate's Court. The suit concerned land purchased in 1968 and took nine years to prosecute, with the plaintiff presenting five witnesses and the defendant four witnesses. The Taxing Master taxed the respondent's bill of costs on 17 March 2022 and allowed UGX 12,489,500. The appellants challenged this taxation, arguing the bill was exorbitant and that the Taxing Master failed to apply the correct regulations and scales.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Master erred in taxing and allowing the respondent's bill of costs at UGX 12,489,500 without proper regard to the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Regulations.
  2. Which version of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations applies to the taxation of costs in a suit filed in 2008 but taxed in 2022 after the 2018 amendment.
  3. Whether the instruction fees of UGX 4,000,000 awarded by the Taxing Master were appropriate.
  4. Whether certain items in the bill of costs relating to drawing of court papers and attendance were properly allowed.

Orders

  • The sum of UGX 2,315,000 is deducted from the award of the Taxing Master.
  • The bill of costs is allowed at UGX 10,167,500.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Retrospective Application of Amended Regulations
Where a suit is filed and concluded before the coming into force of amended taxation regulations, the taxation of costs must be conducted under the regulations in force at the time the suit was instituted, not the amended regulations, unless the legislature clearly intended retrospective application.
Statutory Interpretation — Retrospective Effect of Legislation
It is a fundamental rule of statutory interpretation that an enactment shall not be construed to have retrospective effect unless the intention of the legislature that it should have such effect appears in express terms or by clear and necessary implication.
Taxation of Costs — Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion
A judge will not interfere with the assessment of what a taxing officer considers to be a reasonable fee save in exceptional cases, as questions of quantum of costs are matters with which the taxing officer is particularly fitted to deal and in which he has more experience than the judge.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees
Instruction fees cover the advocate's work including taking instructions and work necessary for presenting the case for trial or appeal. In determining the reasonableness of instruction fees, the court considers the duration of the suit, the number of witnesses presented, and the overall work done by counsel.
Taxation of Costs — Attendance Fees
Attendance fees may only be allowed for dates on which counsel or the party actually attended court. Where the record of proceedings does not reflect attendance on claimed dates, such items must be disallowed.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Advocates Act s.62(1)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI No. 267-4
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI No. 267-4 Reg 3
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI No. 267-4 6th Schedule Reg 1(a)(v)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI No. 267-4 6th Schedule Rule 2(a)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI No. 267-4 6th Schedule Rule 2(b)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations SI No. 7 of 2018
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 92

Cases cited (7)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanal (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 199)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1982)
  • Wambewo Simon v Mazelele Silvester (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 128 of 2013)
  • Hon. Erias Lukwago and Others v Electoral Commission and 7 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 431 of 2019)
  • Mayanja Joshua and 70 Others v Wantante Samuel and 60 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 497 of 2018)
  • Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electrics (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
  • Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services of East Africa [1972] EA 16

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Byangasha alias Ndikumwami and Another v Habiyakare (Civil Appeal 8 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 73 (6 June 2023)
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.