Wakilii

China Forestry International Development Co. Limited v China Shandong Hispeed Uganda Limited (Civil Appeal 11 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 226 · 2024 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of costs following withdrawal of civil suit
Decision
Matter remitted to Assistant Registrar for fresh taxation with directions to provide reasoned ruling

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 allowed the appeal and set aside the Assistant Registrar's taxation ruling. The Court held that a Taxing Officer must give reasons for taxation decisions to enable parties to understand the basis for the award and to facilitate appeal where appropriate. The absence of a reasoned ruling disabled the appellate process. The Court further held that only an advocate with current instructions, not one from whom instructions were withdrawn, has capacity to file a party-and-party bill of costs. Previous counsel's bill should be attached as disbursements to the current counsel's bill. The matter was remitted for fresh taxation with directions that reasons be provided.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Assistant Registrar for fresh taxation with directions to provide reasoned ruling

Facts

The appellant purchased four heavy duty Sino Trucks and trailers from the respondent under a contract dated 1 April 2020 at a total price of USD 360,306.98. After delivery, the trucks began breaking down with latent defects causing accidents. The appellant filed a civil suit claiming special damages of USD 126,390. The respondent defended the suit, initially instructing M/s Balikuddembe & Co. Advocates, but later withdrew instructions on 19 September 2022 and instructed M/s Kampala Associated Advocates. On 12 September 2023, the appellant withdrew the suit with costs. The respondent's current advocates filed a bill of costs which was taxed by the Assistant Registrar on 21 March 2024, awarding a total of UGX 43,260,018. The appellant appealed challenging the instruction fee award and the taxation methodology.

Issues

  1. Whether the Registrar erred in awarding instruction fees based on an incorrect valuation of the subject matter.
  2. Whether the Registrar exercised her discretion properly in determining the quantum of instruction fees.
  3. Whether the Registrar was required to give reasoned taxation rulings.
  4. Whether previous counsel can file a separate party-and-party bill of costs after instructions have been withdrawn.
  5. Whether items performed by previous counsel should be included in the current advocate's bill of costs.

Orders

  • The costs award of the Assistant Registrar is set aside.
  • The bill of costs is to be amended.
  • The bill of costs is to be taxed afresh.
  • Reasons for the resultant award are to be given to the parties in a taxation ruling.
  • Each party is to bear their own costs of this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Duty to Give Reasons
A Taxing Officer has a duty to give reasons for taxation decisions as a function of the rule of law and of justice, to enable parties to understand the grounds on which costs were awarded and to facilitate appeal where appropriate.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Content of Reasons
Even when delivering a summarised taxation ruling, a Taxing Officer must at a minimum provide an outline of the principles that guided allowing or rejecting items in the bill of costs, a summary of the basic factual conclusions about the items, and a statement of the reasons which led to assessment of the quantum awarded.
Civil Procedure — Appeals from Taxation — Grounds for Interference
An appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion in taxation unless it is satisfied that the Registrar misdirected himself or herself in some matter and as a result arrived at a wrong decision, or unless it is manifest from the case as a whole that the Registrar has been clearly wrong in the exercise of discretion and that as a result there has been injustice.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Determination of Subject Matter
The expression 'subject matter' for purposes of calculating instruction fees includes the cause of action and the relief claimed, referring to the primary right asserted or the legal issue presented. The value of the subject matter is not necessarily the value of the property in respect of which the suit is filed, but the value of the claim or question being determined.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Party-and-Party Bills — Capacity to File
Only an advocate with current instructions, not one from whom instructions were withdrawn, has the capacity to file a party-and-party bill of costs. A bill of costs may not be lodged by an advocate who is not on record.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Multiple Advocates — Single Indemnity Principle
Where there has been successive legal representation, a successful party is not to be indemnified more than once over the same work. The law firms providing successive legal services are not entitled to file separate and individual bills of costs, but rather one itemised bill comprising all items, with the bill of costs of previous counsel attached as disbursements.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Assessment Principles
Instruction fees are governed by the complexity, value and importance to the litigants of the matters in dispute. The Taxing Officer must envisage a hypothetical counsel capable of conducting the particular case effectively but unable or unwilling to insist on particularly high fees, and award a fee this hypothetical character would be content to take on the brief.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (31)

  • Mohamed Kalisa v Gladys Nyangire Karumu and Two Others (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 139 of 2013)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Mbogo and another v. Shah [1968] 1 EA 93
  • National Insurance Corporation v. Mugenyi and Company Advocates [1987] HCB 28
  • Wasswa J. Hannington and another v. Ochola Maria Onyango and three Others [1992-93] HCB 103
  • Devji v. Jinabhai (1934) 1 EACA 89
  • H.K. Shah and another v. Osman Allu (1974) 14 EACA 45
  • Patel v. R. Gottifried (1963) 20 EACA, 81
  • Haji Nadin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)
  • Sheikh Jama v. Dubat Farah [1959] 1 EA 789
  • Hussein Janmohamed and Sons v. Twentsche Overseas Trading Co Ltd [1967] 1 EA 287
  • Thomas James Arthur v. Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] 1 EA 492
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Steel construction and Petroleum Engineering (EA) Ltd v. Uganda Sugar Factory Limited [1970] EA 141
  • Kabanda v Kananura Melvin Consulting Engineers (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 24 of 1993)
  • Makumbi and another v. Sole Electrics (U) Ltd [1990-1994] 1 EA 306
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd and Another v. Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and others [1972] EA 162
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Bashiri v Vitafoam (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 13 of 1995)
  • Habre international Ltd [2000] EA 98
  • Nalumansi v Lule (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 12 of 1992)
  • Hashjam v. Zanab [1957] 1 EA 255
  • First American Bank of Kenya v. Shah and others, [2002] 1 EA 64
  • Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 2 QB 175
  • Stefan v. General Medical Council [1999] 1 WLR 1293
  • Republic v. Minister of Agriculture and 2 others Exparte Samuel Muchiri W'Njuguna and others [2006] 1 E.A.359
  • Cooper and another v. Nevill and another [1959] 1 EA 74
  • Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 3 of 1995)
  • Joreth Ltd v. Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 E.A. 92
  • Malkinson v. Trim [2003] 2 All ER 356
  • Haji Haruna Mulangwa v Sharif Osman (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 3 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

China Forestry International Development Co. Limited v China Shandong Hispeed Uganda Limited (Civil Appeal 11 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 226 (6 June 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.