Wakilii

Dabule and Others v Attorney General of Republic of Uganda (Taxation Reference No.1 of 2020)

East African Court of Justice · [2022] EACJ 39 · 2022 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation reference from the ruling of the Taxing Officer in Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2020 arising from Appeal No. 2 of 2019 which arose from Reference No. 5 of 2016
Decision
Taxation reference partly allowed; disbursements from items 16 to 24 reinstated; instruction fees upheld at USD 19,000; final Bill of Costs set at USD 23,752

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 Court held that the Taxing Officer erred in disallowing disbursements from items 16 to 24 of the Bill of Costs where receipts could not be physically produced during an online taxation hearing but were in counsel's possession and later filed. The Court allowed disbursements totalling USD 4,150 for travel, accommodation, and related expenses. However, the Court upheld the Taxing Officer's award of USD 19,000 for instruction fees, finding no error in the exercise of discretion. The final Bill of Costs was allowed at USD 23,752. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Taxation reference partly allowed; disbursements from items 16 to 24 reinstated; instruction fees upheld at USD 19,000; final Bill of Costs set at USD 23,752

Facts

The Applicants, 1,005 Ugandan residents, were awarded costs in Appeal No. 2 of 2019. They filed a Bill of Costs claiming USD 1,518,317 for instruction fees, disbursements including travel, accommodation, and related expenses between Kampala and Arusha. The Taxing Officer taxed the Bill down to USD 19,602, comprising USD 19,000 instruction fees and USD 602 for other items. The Taxing Officer disallowed all disbursements from items 16 to 31 because receipts were not produced at the time of taxation, which was conducted online due to COVID-19. Counsel for the Applicants had the receipts in his possession during the online hearing and forwarded them to the Taxing Officer by letter dated 3 August 2020, more than one and a half months before the ruling. The Applicants challenged the taxation ruling, arguing the amount was manifestly low and the Taxing Officer erred in disallowing disbursements and in assessing instruction fees.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application is procedurally competent.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in law when he disallowed all claims on disbursements from items 16 to 31 of the Bill of Costs.
  3. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in law in taxing the Bill of Costs to USD 19,602 which is manifestly low given the number of the appellants and the total sum claimed.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Decision of the Taxing Officer disallowing all claims on disbursements from items 16 to 24 of the Bill of Costs in Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2020 is set aside.
  • Instruction fees are allowed at USD 19,000.
  • Disbursements are allowed at USD 4,150 plus previously allowed USD 602, giving a total of USD 4,752.
  • The final Bill of Costs allowed is USD 23,752.
  • Each party bears its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Production of Receipts — Online Hearings
Where a taxation hearing is conducted online and counsel has receipts for disbursements in his possession at the time of the hearing but cannot physically produce them due to the virtual nature of the proceedings, and subsequently files them with the court before the ruling is delivered, the Taxing Officer should consider those receipts rather than disallow the disbursements on the ground that they were not produced at the time of taxation.
Taxation of Costs — Interpretation of Rules — Strict Compliance
Rule 4(2) of the Eighth Schedule requiring receipts for disbursements to be produced to the taxing officer at the time of taxation is applicable to physical hearings where parties can tender documents in person. Where a hearing is conducted online, strict literal interpretation would render compliance impossible, and the rule should be interpreted to accommodate the practical realities of virtual proceedings.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Factors for Consideration
In assessing instruction fees, the Taxing Officer must consider the amount involved in the appeal, its nature, importance and difficulty, the interests of the parties, other costs to be allowed, the general conduct of proceedings, the person to bear the costs, and all other relevant circumstances. The number of parties does not per se make a case complex; complexity depends on the legal issues involved.
Taxation of Costs — Judicial Discretion — Interference on Appeal
A Taxing Officer's exercise of discretion in assessing costs will not be interfered with on appeal unless it is shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or without regard to established legal principles, or that the Taxing Officer failed to consider relevant factors required by the Rules.
Taxation of Costs — Valuation of Subject Matter — Basis for Instruction Fees
Where a party claims instruction fees based on an alleged value of the subject matter, that value must be disclosed in the pleadings and established by evidence. A value mentioned only in the Bill of Costs and not pleaded or canvassed during the hearing cannot form the basis for assessing instruction fees.

Cases cited (10)

  • Secretary General of the East African Community v Margaret N Zziwa (Taxation Reference No. 1 of 2019)
  • African Network for Animal Welfare v Attorney General of Kenya (Reference No. 1 of 2012)
  • Premchard Raichand Ltd Vs Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and others (No.3) EA 102
  • Democratic Party and Another v Attorney General of Uganda (Taxation Reference No. 3 of 2013)
  • Plaxeda Rugumba v Attorney General of Rwanda (Taxation Cause No. 2 of 2012)
  • Prof Anyang' Nyong'o and 10 Others v Attorney General of Kenya (Reference No. 1 of 2006)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Joreth Limited v Kigano & Associates (Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1999)
  • Attorney General v Gladys Nakibuule Kisekka (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2016)
  • Alcon International Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda & 2 Others (Appeal No. 3 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dabule and Others v Attorney General of Republic of Uganda (Taxation Reference No.1 of 2020) [2022] EACJ 39 (20 May 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.