Wakilii

Ddegeya Trading Stores Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal 44 of 1996)

Court of Appeal · [1997] UGCA 19 · 1997 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from an order of the High Court setting aside a consent taxation order of the Registrar
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; the High Court's order setting aside the consent taxation order upheld

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 7 (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 7 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 7 citing cases on record, 6 in the most recent three data years. 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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that by accepting the trial Judge's order and filing a fresh bill of costs as directed, the appellant waived its right to appeal, since a party cannot approbate and reprobate the same decision. Although the trial Judge wrongly relied on section 84 of the Civil Procedure Act (which applies to magistrates' courts), the Court found that a consent taxation order which is manifestly excessive and non-compliant with the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules is contrary to the policy of the court ensuring affordable access to justice, and may properly be set aside. The original taxed instruction fee was unjustifiably high.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; the High Court's order setting aside the consent taxation order upheld

Facts

Ubadi Enterprises Ltd sued the respondent and the appellant in the High Court. The appellant filed a counterclaim against the respondent claiming Shs.1.2 billion in special, general and punitive damages, interest and costs. The counterclaim succeeded only to a limited extent, with general damages of Shs.500,000 awarded. The appellant filed a bill of costs against the respondent claiming an instruction fee calculated on the basis of the Shs.1.2 billion claimed, and the bill totalling about Shs.20.9 million was allowed by consent at Shs.17.79 million. The respondent later complained to the Registrar that it had not consented and requested revision; the Registrar declined. The respondent applied to the High Court, which declared the bill invalid and set it aside, ordering a fresh bill. The appellant complied by filing a revised bill, then appealed. The revised bill itself reflected corrections of items the appellant conceded were not according to law.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant, by accepting and acting on the order of the High Court Judge, waived its right to proceed with the appeal.
  2. Whether the trial Judge erred in applying section 84 of the Civil Procedure Act (revisional jurisdiction) to set aside a taxation order of a Registrar of the High Court.
  3. Whether the application to set aside the consent taxation order was competent and whether the conditions for setting aside a consent order were satisfied.
  4. Whether the consent taxation order, being manifestly excessive and not compliant with the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules, was contrary to the policy of the court.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded against the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Waiver — Approbation and Reprobation
A party who accepts and acts upon a court's order with the intention of taking a benefit from it waives the right to appeal against that order, as a party cannot approbate and reprobate the same decision.
Civil Procedure Act s.84 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope
The revisional jurisdiction conferred by section 84 of the Civil Procedure Act applies only to proceedings in magistrates' courts and subordinate courts, and cannot be invoked to revise a taxation order made by a Registrar acting as an officer of the High Court.
Consent Orders — Grounds for Setting Aside
A consent order may be set aside only on the same grounds that would justify setting aside a contract, such as fraud, collusion, agreement contrary to policy, mistake of material facts, or a reason that would enable the court to set the agreement aside.
Taxation of Costs — Public Policy — Access to Justice
A consent taxation order that is manifestly excessive and fails to comply with the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules is contrary to the policy of the court of ensuring reasonable and affordable access to justice, and may be set aside notwithstanding the parties' consent.
Instruction Fees — Basis of Assessment — Value of Subject Matter
The instruction fee on taxation is determined from the value of the subject matter, which is the amount actually awarded in the judgment rather than the amount claimed where no greater value is shown in the pleadings; allowing an instruction fee based on the amount claimed where it grossly exceeds the value of relief obtained is improper.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (5)

  • Johnson vs New Forest Union Rural District Council, 8 K.B. 1932
  • Brooke Bond Liebig (T) Ltd v Mallya [1975] EA 266
  • Libyan Arab Bank for Foreign Trade and Development vs Adam Vassiliadis, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 14 of 1991 (unreported)
  • Hirani v Kassam (1952) 19 E.A.C.A. 131
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (1973) Ltd, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 1993 (unreported)

Cases citing this judgment (7)

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.

Ddegeya Trading Stores Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal 44 of 1996) [1997] UGCA 19 (21 February 1997)
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.