Wakilii

Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd v Biira Khighambo (Taxation Appeal No. 27 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 61 · 2022 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from a taxing master's award of costs in Civil Suit No. 020 of 2019
Decision
Taxation appeal allowed; costs award reduced from UGX 20,818,260 to UGX 14,238,260; new certificate of taxation to be issued

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 High Court held that a taxing master's award of costs totalling UGX 20,818,260 was manifestly excessive and contravened the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018. The court reduced the award to UGX 14,238,260, finding that instruction fees of UGX 8,000,000 were harsh and excessive, and that multiple items were either duplicative, not provided for under the regulations, or already covered by instruction fees. The court rejected the respondent's preliminary objection that the items had been agreed at pre-taxation, finding no record of such consent.

Outcome

Taxation appeal allowed; costs award reduced from UGX 20,818,260 to UGX 14,238,260; new certificate of taxation to be issued

Facts

The respondent was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 020 of 2019, which was decided in her favour with costs. Her lawyers filed a bill of costs which was taxed by the taxing master and allowed at UGX 20,818,260. The applicant bank appealed, contending that the award was manifestly excessive and that several items contravened the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018. Specific objections included instruction fees of UGX 8,000,000 being excessive given the subject matter value, and multiple items being duplicative or not provided for under the regulations. The respondent opposed the appeal, arguing that the items had been agreed at a pre-taxation meeting held on 6 October 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's application is proper before this court and whether the application should be allowed.
  2. Whether the costs awarded to the respondent in Civil Suit No. 020 of 2019 should be reviewed and set aside.

Orders

  • The award by the Taxing Master of UGX 20,818,260 is hereby reviewed and set aside.
  • The Taxing Officer should issue a new Certificate of Taxation in line with the amounts taxed off.
  • Item 66 VAT should be adjusted in line with the amounts taxed off and taken care of in the new Certificate of Taxation.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Principles Governing Judicial Review of Taxing Master's Award
A judge should not interfere with a taxing master's assessment of reasonable fees merely because the judge would have allowed a different amount. Interference is justified only where the taxing master applied a wrong principle, which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Assessment Based on Subject Matter Value
Under the current legal framework, a taxing master must conduct taxation in compliance with the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018 and cannot award costs less than or more than what is stipulated under those regulations. The value of the subject matter, as stated in the plaint or derived from available transaction documents, guides the assessment of instruction fees under the Sixth Schedule.
Taxation of Costs — Items Covered by Instruction Fees
Meetings with clients in chambers, perusing the defence and witness statements, interviewing witnesses, and preparation and research for submissions are all covered by instruction fees and cannot be charged separately under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018.
Taxation of Costs — Summary of Evidence and Summons
A plaint must be accompanied by a copy of the summary of evidence. The regulations do not provide for drafting the summary of evidence or extracting summons to file defence separately from the plaint, and such items must be taxed off.
Taxation of Costs — Pre-Taxation Agreements — Effect on Appeal
Where there is no record of consent to a bill of costs or any court record evidencing agreement at a pre-taxation meeting, an appeal against the taxing master's award is not an abuse of process. Even where items are agreed, the taxation must comply with the regulations to strike a balance between adequate remuneration for advocates and protection of litigants from excessive costs.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (7)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Balyeku Moses Grace Vs. Ali Buk Ben Mise, Appn No. 153 of 202
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Thomas James Arthur v. Nyeri Electricity Undertaking, (1961) EA 492
  • Gulu Institute of Health Science v Bwomu Gerald (High Court Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2016)
  • Administrators of the Estate of the Late Barbara Lakeli v JWB Kiwanuka & 3 Others (Taxation Appeal No. 003 of 2013)
  • Makumbi and another v. Sole Electrics (U) Ltd [1990-1994] 1 EA 306

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd v Biira Khighambo (Taxation Appeal No. 27 of 2022) [2022] UGHC 61 (29 November 2022)
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.