Wakilii

Democratic Party and Another v Attorney General of Republic of Uganda (Taxation Reference 3 of 2013)

East African Court of Justice · [2013] EACJ 4 · 2013 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation reference challenging the Taxing Officer's ruling on costs awarded in Reference No. 6 of 2011 and Application No. 6 of 2011
Decision
Taxation reference dismissed; Taxing Officer's award of USD 51,556 as taxed costs 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

The Court dismissed the taxation reference, upholding the Taxing Officer's award of USD 51,556 as taxed costs. The Court held that the Taxing Officer acted judiciously in awarding USD 15,000 plus VAT as instruction fees and USD 3,750 as getting up fees, properly applying Rules 9(1) and 2 of the Second Schedule. The case was distinguished from Professor Anyang' Nyong'o on grounds of complexity, number of parties, and timing of elections. The Court found no basis to interfere with the Taxing Officer's discretion in disallowing various items including perusal of own documents, service of documents mischaracterized as attendances, and commissioning costs lacking proper receipts.

Outcome

Taxation reference dismissed; Taxing Officer's award of USD 51,556 as taxed costs upheld

Facts

The Applicants, Democratic Party and Mukasa Fred Mbidde, challenged a Taxing Officer's ruling dated 3 May 2013 in Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2012, which awarded them USD 51,556 as taxed costs arising from Reference No. 6 of 2011 and Application No. 6 of 2011. The underlying matter concerned elections to the East African Legislative Assembly. The Applicants contended that the instruction fees of USD 15,000 plus 18% VAT were manifestly inadequate given the complexity and importance of the case, and that the Taxing Officer wrongly disallowed numerous items in their Bill of Costs including getting up fees, costs for drawing up and perusing documents, attending to witnesses, service of submissions, and commissioning documents. The Applicants sought to compare their case to Professor Anyang' Nyong'o where substantially higher costs were awarded. The Respondent opposed the application, supporting the Taxing Officer's exercise of discretion.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer's award of USD 15,000 plus 18% VAT as instruction fees was manifestly inadequate and in contravention of Rule 9(1) of the Taxation of Costs under the 2nd Schedule of the EACJ Rules of Procedure.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in disallowing instruction fees, getting up fees, and other costs for the Reference and interlocutory Application separately.
  3. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in disallowing costs for drawing up, perusing, and attending to various documents and witnesses.
  4. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in disallowing costs for commissioning and notarization of documents.

Orders

  • Taxation reference disallowed.
  • Taxing Officer's ruling dated 3 May 2013 upheld.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the reference.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Discretion of Taxing Officer
A Taxing Officer has discretion in taxation of costs but must exercise it judicially, not whimsically. The Court will only interfere when the award is so high or so low as to amount to an injustice to one party.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Assessment Factors
Under Rule 9(1) of the Second Schedule to the EACJ Rules of Procedure, the fee to be allowed for instructions should be the sum that the Taxing Officer considers reasonable but not less than USD 100. There is no mathematical formula; each case must be decided on its own merits and circumstances considering factors including time spent and affordability of access to the Court.
Taxation of Costs — Getting Up Fees — Calculation
Under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the EACJ Rules of Procedure, in any case where issues for trial are joined by pleadings, a fee for getting up and preparing the case for trial shall be allowed in addition to the instruction fee and shall be not less than one quarter of the instruction fee allowed on taxation.
Taxation of Costs — Perusal of Documents — Own Documents
Counsel is not entitled to charge for perusing documents drawn by himself. Perusal of documents can only be allowed for documents drawn by the opposite party, not documents drawn by the Applicant's own counsel.
Taxation of Costs — Attendances — Service of Documents
Service of documents cannot be charged under attendances. Under Rules 6 and 8 of the EACJ Rules of Procedure, attendance and service are charged separately and must not be mischaracterized.
Taxation of Costs — Disbursements — Proof Required
Under Rule 4(2) of the Third Schedule to the EACJ Rules of Procedure, receipts for disbursements must be produced to the Taxing Officer and copies served to the other party at least fourteen days before taxation. Payment vouchers from counsel's own law firm are insufficient; actual receipts from the service provider are required.
Taxation of Costs — Precedent — Distinguishing Cases
Cases on taxation of costs must be distinguished on their facts. A case involving elections already conducted under impugned rules, greater complexity, more parties, and higher instruction fees covering all applicants together is distinguishable from a case where elections had not yet occurred, involving fewer parties and less complexity.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Articles 6(d), 7, 8, 23, 27, 30, 33, 38
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rules 1(2), 17, 111, 112, 113, 114
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 9(1) (Second Schedule)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 2 (Second Schedule)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rules 6, 8
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 4(2) (Third Schedule)
  • Political Parties and Organizations Act 2005
  • Statute of the International Court of Justice Article 38
  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969

Cases cited (7)

  • Professor Anyang' Nyong'o & Others v Attorney General of Kenya and Others (Reference No. 1 of 2006)
  • Kenya Ports Authority v Modern Holdings Ltd (Taxation Reference No. 4 of 2010)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd and Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and Others (No. 3) [1972] EA 162
  • Steel Construction Petroleum Engineering (E.A) Limited vs Uganda Sugar Factory (1970) E.A Ltd
  • Attorney General of Kenya v Professor Peter Anyang' Nyong'o & Others (Taxation Reference No. 5 of 2010)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabi Espaniol (Application No. 2 of 1999)
  • Prof. Peter Anyang' Nyong'o - Taxation Case No.6 of 2008 and also EACJ's Appeal No.1 of 2002

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Democratic Party and Another v Attorney General of Republic of Uganda (Taxation Reference 3 of 2013) [2013] EACJ 4 (13 September 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.