Wakilii

Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Limited (Civil Application 13 of 1999)

Supreme Court · [1999] UGSC 30 · 1999 Reference Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single judge of the Supreme Court, under rule 105(1) of the Rules of the Court, from the taxing officer's assessment of an instruction fee in a bill of costs
Decision
Reference allowed; instruction fee reduced from shs 16,000,000 to shs 4,000,000

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations fading — 3 citing cases on record, 3 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

On a reference from the taxing officer, the Supreme Court held that the officer erred in principle by treating the property, its value, prime location and occupancy by the Kabaka as the subject matter of the appeal, when the appeal concerned only the joinder of the Custodian Board and involved no monetary amount. The officer further erred by misconstruing the leading judgment as finding the appeal complex; the cited complexity related to Court of Appeal proceedings, irrelevant to the Supreme Court taxation. Because the assessment rested on wrong principles producing an excessive amount, interference was justified. The reference was allowed and the instruction fee reduced from shs 16,000,000 to shs 4,000,000.

Outcome

Reference allowed; instruction fee reduced from shs 16,000,000 to shs 4,000,000

Facts

Residential premises on Kololo hill, expropriated under the Assets of Departed Asians Decree 1973 and vested in the Custodian Board, were sold on and later successfully reclaimed by Jaffer Brothers under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, with the Minister authorising repossession. When the occupant disputed loss of ownership, Jaffer Brothers sued in the High Court; the Attorney General and Custodian Board were joined as co-defendants and the suit was dismissed on preliminary objection. The Court of Appeal reinstated the suit and remitted it for trial, awarding costs against the Custodian Board. The Custodian Board's further appeal to the Supreme Court, concerning the propriety of its joinder, was dismissed with costs. Jaffer Brothers' bill of costs claimed shs 30,000,000 as instruction fee under item 3; the taxing officer allowed shs 16,000,000, treating the disputed property's value, location and occupancy as relevant subject matter. The Custodian Board referred that assessment to a single judge.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer erred in principle by treating the property and its value as the subject matter of the Supreme Court appeal for purposes of paragraph 9(2) of the Third Schedule to the Rules.
  2. Whether the taxing officer erred in holding the appeal to be 'involving' or complex by misconstruing the leading judgment.
  3. Whether the single judge should interfere with the taxing officer's assessment of the instruction fee.

Orders

  • Reference allowed to the extent that the instruction fee is reduced from shs 16,000,000 to shs 4,000,000.
  • Costs of the reference to the Custodian Board.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fee — Identification of subject matter of an appeal
Where an appeal involves no amount of money, the instruction fee must be assessed by reference to the other relevant factors in paragraph 9(2) of the Third Schedule, such as the importance and difficulty of the appeal, and the taxing officer may not attribute to the appeal a monetary subject matter, such as the value of property not in issue.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Relevant factors under paragraph 9(2) of the Third Schedule
In assessing a reasonable instruction fee the taxing officer takes into account only those factors listed in paragraph 9(2) that are relevant to the particular appeal, and disregards any factor that is not applicable.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Interference with taxing officer's assessment on reference
A taxing officer's opinion on a reasonable fee will not be interfered with lightly; interference is justified only where there is a compelling reason, namely that the officer expressly based his opinion on a wrong principle, resulting in an amount so high or low as to amount to injustice to a party.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Allowance for fall in the value of money
While maintaining consistency in the level of costs, the taxing officer must make allowance for any fall in the value of money over time.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Balancing exercise in assessing instruction fee
Taxation of costs is not a mathematical exercise but an intricate balancing act in which the taxing officer weighs reimbursing the successful party and attracting recruits to the profession against the duty to keep the courts accessible by not allowing costs to be excessively hiked.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.105(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court, Third Schedule para.9(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.10(2)
  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.1(1)
  • Assets of Departed Asians Decree 1973

Cases cited (8)

  • Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (1973) Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1992)
  • PATRICK MAKUMBI & ANOTHER VS SOLE ELECTRICS (U) LTD Civil Application No. 11 of ... (unreported)
  • The Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Application No. 3 of 1995)
  • ATTORNEY GENERAL VS UGANDA MANUFACTURERS 19/4 LTD: Civil Application No. 17 of 1993 (unreported)
  • Gold Trust Bank Ltd v Hanax Ltd (Civil Application No. 32 of 1995)
  • Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services (No. 3) [1972] EA 162
  • Makula Properties Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1996)
  • Victoria Tea Estate Ltd v James Ben and Another (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1993)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Limited (Civil Application 13 of 1999) [1999] UGSC 30 (8 December 1999)
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.