Wakilii

Concorp International Limited v Eastern & Southern Trade & Development Bank (Civil Reference 4 of 2012)

Supreme Court · [2013] UGSC 26 · 2013 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single judge of the Supreme Court under Rule 106 from a taxation ruling of the Deputy Registrar (Taxation Officer)
Decision
Reference disallowed; Taxing Officer's award of Shs.6,000,000 instruction fees upheld

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

On a reference under Rule 106, the single judge declined to disturb the Taxing Officer's award of Shs.6,000,000 as instruction fees. A court will interfere with a taxing officer's wide discretion under Rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule only where the award is so high or so low as to amount to an injustice or reflects a wrong principle. Because the appeal succeeded only on a preliminary point of law — whether the respondent could be sued without a presidential waiver under Cap. 53 — and not on the merits or monetary value of the suit, the value of the loan was not the proper basis for the fee. The Makula International approach was distinguished. The reference was disallowed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Reference disallowed; Taxing Officer's award of Shs.6,000,000 instruction fees upheld

Facts

The applicant had sued the respondent bank in the High Court (HCCS No. 48 of 2001) arising out of a loan agreement. The respondent raised a preliminary objection under Cap. 53, contending no suit could be maintained without a waiver from the respondent's President. The High Court upheld the objection and dismissed the suit, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. On further appeal, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, held the waiver unnecessary, and remitted the case to the High Court for hearing on the merits, ordering the respondent to pay the applicant's costs in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. At the ensuing taxation, the Deputy Registrar allowed a bill of costs totalling Shs.7,624,670, including Shs.6,000,000 as instruction fees against the Shs.835,552,200 claimed. The applicant brought this reference contending the instruction fee was manifestly too low.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer's award of Shs.6,000,000 as instruction fees was so manifestly low as to amount to a misdirection or the application of a wrong principle warranting interference on reference.
  2. Whether instruction fees on an appeal decided solely on a preliminary point of law should be assessed by reference to the monetary value of the subject matter of the suit.

Orders

  • The taxing officer's award is upheld.
  • The reference is disallowed.
  • Costs of the reference awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion
A court will interfere with a taxing officer's award only where it is so high or so low as to amount to an injustice to one of the parties, or where it reflects the application of a wrong principle; taxation is a matter of opinion based on experience, not a mathematical exercise, and the court will not substitute its own opinion merely because it considers the award somewhat too high or too low.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Basis of Assessment
Instruction fees under Rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule must be a reasonable sum having regard to the amount involved in the appeal, its nature, importance and difficulty, the interests of the parties, the other costs to be allowed, the general conduct of the proceedings, the fund or person to bear the costs and all other relevant circumstances.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees on a Preliminary Point of Law
Where an appeal is decided solely on a preliminary point of law and the suit is remitted for hearing on the merits, the monetary value of the subject matter of the suit is not the proper basis for assessing instruction fees, since that value will fall to be considered on a later taxation once the merits are determined.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.106
  • Rules of the Supreme Court, Third Schedule, r.9(2)
  • Eastern & Southern African Trade & Development Bank Act Cap. 53

Cases cited (5)

  • J.W.R. Itazoora v M.S.L. Riikwa (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 16 of 1993)
  • Makula International Ltd v Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Ebrahim A. Jassim & Others v Habre International Ltd (Reference Taxation No. 16 of 1999)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & Others [1972] E.A. 162
  • Yisero Mugenyi v Philemon Wandera & Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 20 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Concorp International Limited v Eastern & Southern Trade & Development Bank (Civil Reference 4 of 2012) [2013] UGSC 26 (28 March 2013)
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.