Wakilii

Democratic Party and Others v Attorney General of Republic of Uganda (Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2012)

East African Court of Justice · [2013] EACJ 151 · 2013 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of bill of costs following successful reference and interlocutory application
Decision
Bill of costs taxed down from USD 11,178,936.55 to USD 51,556

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 Taxing Officer reduced the claimed instruction fees from USD 21,081,080 to USD 15,000 plus VAT, finding the original claim outrageously excessive. Getting up fees were awarded at one quarter of instruction fees as per the rules. Various disbursements and attendance items were taxed down or disallowed where not supported by receipts or not in accordance with the taxation rules. Total costs awarded were USD 51,556.

Outcome

Bill of costs taxed down from USD 11,178,936.55 to USD 51,556

Facts

The applicants filed Reference No. 6 of 2010 and Application No. 6 of 2011 challenging the 2006 Rules governing EALA elections. The Court granted the injunction application with costs in the cause, and in its judgment of 10 May 2012 found that the 2006 Rules did not conform to the Treaty. The Court ordered the Parliament of Uganda to amend the Rules and ordered the Attorney General to pay costs. The applicants then filed a bill of costs totalling USD 11,178,936.55 covering instruction fees, attendances, and disbursements. The respondent objected to the quantum as excessive and argued various items were not drawn according to scale or lacked supporting documentation.

Issues

  1. What is the appropriate quantum of instruction fees to be awarded in a taxation of costs following a successful reference concerning electoral rules?
  2. Whether the applicants are entitled to charge instruction fees separately for each applicant or collectively.
  3. What is the appropriate quantum for disbursements, attendances, and subsistence allowances claimed in the bill of costs?

Orders

  • Instruction fees taxed at USD 15,000 plus VAT at 18% (USD 2,700).
  • Getting up fees taxed at USD 3,750 (one quarter of instruction fees).
  • Attendances and disbursements taxed at USD 30,106.
  • Grand total of costs awarded: USD 51,556.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Assessment of Reasonable Quantum
In taxing instruction fees, the court must consider the complexity of the matter, time taken in research, whether the matter was novel, and the number of parties involved. An instruction fee claim that is outrageously excessive will be taxed down to a reasonable amount reflecting these factors.
Taxation of Costs — Multiple Applicants — Separate or Collective Charging
Where multiple applicants are represented by the same counsel in the same matter, instruction fees should be charged collectively and not separately for each applicant, particularly where the applicants are closely related entities such as a political party and its secretary general.
Taxation of Costs — Getting Up Fees — Calculation
Getting up fees are to be calculated at one quarter of the instruction fees as provided under the taxation rules, and not at one third as may be claimed by a party.
Taxation of Costs — Disbursements — Documentary Proof Required
Disbursements claimed in a bill of costs must be supported by receipts. Payment vouchers issued by the advocate's own firm are insufficient. Items claimed without receipts or proper documentation will be taxed off.
Taxation of Costs — Perusal of Own Documents — Not Chargeable Separately
An advocate is not entitled to charge separately for perusing documents drawn by himself. Such work should be charged under instruction fees and not as a separate item of attendance.

Cases cited (2)

  • Prof. Anyang Nyongo
  • Attorney General v Anyang Nyongo and 10 Others (Appeal No. 1 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Democratic Party and Others v Attorney General of Republic of Uganda (Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2012) [2013] EACJ 151 (3 May 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.