Wakilii

Cissy Nanono and 2 Others v Musimami Ramanthan (Miscellaneous Application No.15 of 2016)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 303 · 2018 Reference Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference under section 62 of the Advocates Act from a decision of the taxing officer in taxation of costs
Decision
Reference partly allowed; bill of costs re-taxed at reduced amount

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

On a reference under section 62 of the Advocates Act challenging a taxation of costs, the court held that instruction fees of Shs 2,500,000 for an application for leave to appeal were excessive and reduced them to Shs 1,500,000. The court upheld the taxing officer's computation of copying fees and submissions as compliant with the Sixth Schedule regulations. However, VAT was improperly computed on the total bill rather than solely on instruction fees, and the court found computational errors totalling Shs 795,000. The bill was re-taxed at Shs 4,557,000.

Outcome

Reference partly allowed; bill of costs re-taxed at reduced amount

Facts

The applicants filed an application for revision in the High Court which was dismissed. They then filed an application for leave to appeal against the revision decision in Miscellaneous Application No. 142 of 2014, which was also dismissed. The respondent's bill of costs arising from the leave application was taxed and allowed at Shs 6,794,558. The applicants challenged five items: instruction fees of Shs 2,500,000; copying fees of Shs 360,000; drafting fees of Shs 140,000 and Shs 1,215,000; VAT of Shs 1,036,458 allegedly awarded without certificate; and computational errors allegedly adding Shs 1,000,000. The applicants had not attended the taxation hearing to oppose the bill.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer correctly assessed the instruction fees at Shs 2,500,000.
  2. Whether the taxing officer correctly computed various items in the bill of costs including copying fees and submissions.
  3. Whether VAT was properly awarded and computed.
  4. Whether there were computational errors in the total bill of costs.

Orders

  • Instruction fees reduced from Shs 2,500,000 to Shs 1,500,000.
  • VAT to be computed only on instruction fees at 18%, resulting in Shs 270,000.
  • Bill of costs re-taxed and allowed at Shs 4,557,000.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Review of Taxing Officer's Decision — Standard of Judicial Interference
A judge does not interfere with the assessment of the taxing officer save in exceptional cases where it is shown that the taxing officer exercised or applied a wrong principle, which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low.
Taxation of Costs — Standard of Judicial Interference — Test for Interference
Even where a taxing officer erred on principle, the judge should interfere only on being satisfied that the error substantially affected the decision on quantum and that upholding the amount allowed would cause injustice to one of the parties.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Applications for Leave to Appeal
Instruction fees for an application for leave to appeal should be assessed without consideration for the value of the subject matter underlying the main suit, as the application itself is a discrete procedural matter.
Taxation of Costs — VAT — Computation Basis
VAT on a bill of costs should be computed only on instruction fees and not on the total bill, since the total includes disbursements such as transport refunds which do not attract VAT.
Taxation of Costs — VAT Certificate — Burden of Challenge
The requirement for production of a VAT certificate must be specifically requested by the party contending that the opposite party is not VAT registered, and a party who did not attend taxation to oppose the bill cannot later speculate about the absence of a certificate.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Cissy Nanono and 2 Others v Musimami Ramanthan (Miscellaneous Application No.15 of 2016) [2018] UGHCCD 303 (11 June 2018)
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.