Wakilii

Development Finance Co. (U) Limited v Uganda Polybags (Civil Appeal 58 of 1999)

Court of Appeal · [2000] UGCA 31 · 2000 Reference Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference on taxation to a single Judge of the Court of Appeal under rule 109 of the Court of Appeal Rules, challenging the Taxing Officer's award of instruction fees
Decision
Reference allowed; Taxing Officer's instruction fee award set aside and substituted with Shs.1,000,000 for the appeal and Shs.800,000 for the cross-appeal

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. 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 on taxation, the Court held that the Taxing Officer misdirected himself by assessing instruction fees on the value of the subject matter of the suit (Shs.4.7 billion) rather than the value of the subject matter on appeal, which was the security-for-costs sum of Shs.8 million (or Shs.113.4 million as sought). The award of Shs.150 million was outrageously high and amounted to an injustice, offending the principle that costs must not restrict access to court to the wealthy. Applying comparable cases, instruction fees of about 8-10% of the value in dispute are reasonable. The reference was allowed and the fees substituted with Shs.1 million for the appeal and Shs.800,000 for the cross-appeal.

Outcome

Reference allowed; Taxing Officer's instruction fee award set aside and substituted with Shs.1,000,000 for the appeal and Shs.800,000 for the cross-appeal

Facts

The respondent, a company in receivership, sued the applicants in the High Court challenging the receivership. The High Court ordered security for costs of Shs.8 million to cover all three applicants. The applicants appealed seeking the sum increased to Shs.113.4 million, and the respondent cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal with costs. On taxation, the Taxing Officer allowed the applicants Shs.5,056,000 (one bill for one counsel) and allowed the respondent Shs.150 million in instruction fees, basing that figure on the alleged Shs.4.7 billion value of the assets in dispute in the underlying suit. The applicants brought this reference contending the award was manifestly excessive because it was based on the value of the suit rather than the value of the subject matter on appeal, which was the security-for-costs sum.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer erred by basing his taxation of instruction fees on the value of the subject matter of the suit rather than the value of the subject matter on appeal.
  2. Whether the instruction fee of Shs.150 million awarded to the respondent was manifestly excessive.
  3. Whether the three applicants, having instructed one advocate jointly, were entitled to separate bills of costs.

Orders

  • Reference allowed.
  • Orders of the Taxing Officer as to instruction fees set aside.
  • Instruction fees substituted at Shs.1,000,000 to defend the appeal.
  • Instruction fees substituted at Shs.800,000 to defend the cross-appeal.
  • Respondent to pay the applicants' costs of the reference.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Value of Subject Matter on Appeal
In taxing instruction fees on appeal, the relevant value of the subject matter is the value of what is in dispute on appeal, not the value of the subject matter of the suit at first instance.
Costs — Taxation — Power to Interfere with Award
The Court may interfere with a Taxing Officer's award of instruction fees where it is so high or so low as to amount to an injustice to the parties.
Costs — Taxation — Reasonable Range of Instruction Fees
An instruction fee ranging from about 8 to 10 per cent of the value of the subject matter in dispute is reasonable, with variation to account for the nature of the case, its complexity and the interest of the parties.
Costs — Access to Justice
Costs must not be permitted to sky-rocket so as to restrict access to court to the wealthy alone, as this violates the principle that access to court should remain manageable for the less wealthy.
Costs — Single Bill for Jointly Represented Parties
Where one advocate handles the case of several parties jointly in one proceeding with a common grievance, the Taxing Officer is justified in allowing a single bill of costs rather than separate bills for each party.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Prenrch and Raichand LTD. Vs. ... Motor Services 1972 DA 162
  • Bank of Uganda v Transroad Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1997)
  • SIETCO v Noble Builders (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1993)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Development Finance Co. (U) Limited v Uganda Polybags (Civil Appeal 58 of 1999) [2000] UGCA 31 (5 January 2000)
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.