Wakilii

Commissioner of Customs, Revenue Authority v Kasibo Joshua (HCT-00-CC-CA 9 of 2008)

High Court · [2011] UGCOMMC 5 · 2011 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation officer's decision on bill of costs
Decision
Appeal partly allowed; instruction fee reduced; bill of costs re-taxed at lower total

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 taxing officer erred in principle by increasing the instruction fee on the basis of complexity under Regulation 6 without a certificate from the presiding Judge as required by paragraph 1(a)(ix) of the Sixth Schedule. The discretion under Regulation 13 could be used to lift the minimum fee for a judicial review application above Shs.150,000/-, but an increase to Shs.30,000,000/- was excessive. A reasonable figure under Regulation 13 was Shs.10,000,000/-. Appeal partly allowed.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed; instruction fee reduced; bill of costs re-taxed at lower total

Facts

The Respondent obtained costs in judicial review proceedings for prerogative writs. The taxing officer assessed the Respondent's Bill of Costs at Shs.30,000,000/- under Item 15 (instruction fees), which the Respondent had claimed at Shs.82,000,000/-. The Appellant accepted all other items but contested Item 15, arguing that the dispute value was Shs.340,000,000/- and the applicable minimum fee under the Sixth Schedule was Shs.150,000/- (for motions and chamber summons) or Shs.4,700,000/- (if treated as an ordinary suit). The taxing officer increased the fee to Shs.30,000,000/- by applying Regulations 6 and 13 without a certificate of complexity from the presiding Judge.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer erred in law by awarding Shs.30,000,000/- under Item 15 (instruction fees) of the Respondent's Bill of Costs.
  2. Whether execution should be stayed pending appeal.

Orders

  • Item 15 of the Bill of Costs reduced from Shs.30,000,000/- to Shs.10,000,000/-.
  • Bill of costs taxed and allowed at Shs.23,359,000/-.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Principles Governing Appeals from Taxing Officer's Decision
Courts should interfere with a taxing officer's decision where there has been an error in principle, but should not interfere on questions solely of quantum, as the taxing officer is more experienced in such matters and better placed to make the assessment.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Certificate of Complexity Requirement
Where a taxing officer increases an instruction fee on the basis of complexity under Regulation 6, a certificate from the presiding Judge or Magistrate is required under paragraph 1(a)(ix) of the Sixth Schedule. An increase without such a certificate constitutes an error of principle.
Taxation of Costs — Regulation 13 Discretion — Judicial Review Applications
An application for judicial review involving prerogative orders is not the same as an ordinary interlocutory application. The taxing officer may use the discretion under Regulation 13 to allow costs higher than the minimum fee prescribed for motions and chamber summons where such costs are necessary or proper for the attainment of justice.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (3)

  • Jobbing Field Properties Ltd v Lumonya Bushara & Co. Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2008)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani & Another (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
  • Alexander Okello v Kayondo and Co. Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Commissioner of Customs, Revenue Authority v Kasibo Joshua (HCT-00-CC-CA 9 of 2008) [2011] UGCommC 5 (11 January 2011)
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.