Wakilii

Damuco Investments Ltd v Opportunity Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Appeal 6 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 344 · 2026 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Taxing Master's decision in taxation of costs following unsuccessful civil suit
Decision
Taxation award set aside and matter remitted to Taxing Master for fresh taxation with specific procedural directions

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 held that a Taxing Master must grant parties an opportunity to be heard on disputed items in a bill of costs and must issue a reasoned ruling explaining the basis for the award. A mere confirmation of mathematical calculations does not constitute a hearing on the merits of a discretionary taxation decision. The absence of a reasoned ruling violates natural justice principles and prevents proper appellate review. The taxation award was set aside and remitted for fresh taxation with directions to hear submissions and deliver a reasoned ruling.

Outcome

Taxation award set aside and matter remitted to Taxing Master for fresh taxation with specific procedural directions

Facts

Damuco Investments Ltd was the unsuccessful party in High Court Civil Suit No. 598 of 2019. Opportunity Bank (U) Ltd subsequently filed a Bill of Costs under Taxation Application No. 0687 of 2025 to recover its costs. On 20th January 2026, the parties held a pre-taxation meeting as required by the 2018 Regulations. While most items were agreed upon, the parties remained at variance regarding Item 1 (instruction fees for the Written Statement of Defence valued at UGX 7,465,064) and Item 2 (instruction fees for the Counterclaim valued at UGX 7,249,088). The Learned Registrar proceeded to compute these items personally and issued a Certificate of Taxation allowing a total of UGX 23,721,652. The Appellant contended that the Registrar proceeded without permitting oral or written submissions on the disputed items and without providing a reasoned ruling explaining the basis of the award.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Master erred by taxing instruction fees without permitting parties to make submissions on disputed items.
  2. Whether the Taxing Master was required to issue a reasoned ruling explaining the basis for the taxation award.
  3. Whether the award of UGX 23,721,652 was manifestly excessive and based on a wrong exercise of discretion.

Orders

  • The award of the Taxing Master in Taxation Application No. 0687 of 2025 is set aside.
  • The Bill of Costs is remitted back to the Taxing Master to be taxed afresh.
  • The Taxing Master is directed to hear submissions from both parties on the disputed items (Item 1 and Item 2) and to deliver a reasoned ruling outlining the principles and basic factual conclusions used to arrive at the assessment.
  • Costs of this Appeal are awarded to the Appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Right to Be Heard — Natural Justice
A Taxing Master exercising discretion in taxation of costs must grant parties an opportunity to be heard through submissions on disputed items. A confirmation of mathematical calculations is not synonymous with a hearing on the merits of a discretionary award, as taxation is a judicial function requiring deliberation on the reasonableness of fees within the applicable scales.
Taxation of Costs — Duty to Give Reasons — Reasoned Ruling Required
A Taxing Master must issue a reasoned ruling explaining the principles and factual conclusions used to arrive at a taxation award. A Certificate of Taxation alone, without an accompanying ruling outlining the logic employed, violates the principles of natural justice and prevents parties from understanding whether the Taxing Master misdirected herself on law or facts, thereby impairing the right of substantive appeal.
Taxation of Costs — Appellate Intervention — Wrong Principle
A High Court judge hearing an appeal from a taxation decision will not interfere merely because a different amount might have been allowed, but will intervene where the Taxing Master exercised discretion on a wrong principle. A wrong principle is capable of being inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low, or from procedural failures such as denying parties a hearing or failing to provide reasons for a discretionary decision.
Taxation of Costs — Discretionary Exercise — Indemnity Principle
Taxation of costs is not an exact science but a matter of judicial opinion as to what amount is reasonable given the particular circumstances of the case. While the Taxing Master must apply the statutory scales in the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, the exercise requires assessment of whether the work done justifies the fee, taking into account the skill, labour, and responsibility involved. A discretionary power exercised in silence is indistinguishable from caprice.
Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions — Duty to Give Reasons
The giving of reasons is a cornerstone of the judicial function and a central aspect of the rule of law. Reasons increase public confidence, facilitate the disclosure of error, and enable parties to know the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases. Without articulated reasons, a court exercising supervisory jurisdiction cannot determine whether principles were followed or whether the decision-maker acted capriciously.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Okoya Bazil v Nyayenga Margaret (High Court Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2017)
  • Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 2 QB 175
  • Stefan v General Medical Council [1999] 1 WLR 1293
  • In Re An Advocate; In Re A Taxation of Costs 2 QB 252
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Tobin and Twomey v. Kerry Foods Ltd., 1 I.L.R.M. 428

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Damuco Investments Ltd v Opportunity Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Appeal 6 of 2026) [2026] UGCommC 344 (29 May 2026)
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.