Wakilii

Dr. Chris Baryomunsi and Another v James Musinguzi Garuga and Another (Taxation Appeal No. 20 of 2017)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 261 · 2018 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from decision of taxing officer on bill of costs
Decision
Instruction fees reduced and bill of costs re-taxed at lower total sum

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

A judge reviewing taxation should not interfere with the taxing officer's assessment unless a wrong principle was applied or the amount is manifestly excessive. The court found the instruction fees of Shs 20,000,000 for a contempt of court application excessive and reduced them to Shs 10,000,000. The taxation appeal succeeded in part.

Outcome

Instruction fees reduced and bill of costs re-taxed at lower total sum

Facts

The respondents had successfully sued the applicants for contempt of court and were awarded damages. The taxing officer taxed the respondents' bill of costs and allowed instruction fees of Shs 20,000,000. The applicants contested only the instruction fees as excessive, while agreeing to all other items in the bill. The original instruction fees claimed were Shs 80,000,000, which the taxing officer had reduced to Shs 20,000,000. The total bill as taxed was Shs 32,610,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the instruction fees of Shs 20,000,000 awarded by the taxing officer were excessive.

Orders

  • Instruction fees awarded to the respondents reduced from Shs 20,000,000 to Shs 10,000,000.
  • Bill of costs re-taxed and allowed at Shs 22,610,000.
  • Application succeeds in part.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Judicial Review of Taxing Officer's Assessment
Save in exceptional cases, a judge will not interfere with the assessment of what the taxing officer considers a reasonable fee, as questions of quantum of costs are matters in which the taxing officer has more experience than the judge and is particularly fitted to deal with.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Wrong Principle — Interference by Judge
An exceptional case warranting judicial interference in taxation arises where it is shown expressly or by inference that in assessing the quantum of the fee, the taxing officer applied a wrong principle, which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees for Contempt Applications
In contempt of court applications, there is no consideration for the award of instruction fees based on the value of the subject matter; each case must be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances, and there is no mathematical or magic formula to arrive at a precise figure.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Electoral Commission and Another v Hon Abdul Katuntu (HCMA No. 001 of 2009)
  • Patrick Makumbi & Another vs Sole Electronics

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dr. Chris Baryomunsi and Another v James Musinguzi Garuga and Another (Taxation Appeal No. 20 of 2017) [2018] UGHCCD 261 (11 July 2018)
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.