Wakilii

Dudu and 3 Others v Nantongo and 2 Others (Taxation Appeal 17 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 128 · 2023 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from Taxing Master's decision on instruction fees in a bill of costs arising from a trespass suit
Decision
Taxation appeal partly allowed; instruction fees reduced from UGX 15,000,000 to UGX 7,000,000; total taxed costs reduced from UGX 37,650,000 to UGX 29,650,000

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

Held that where the value of the subject matter cannot be ascertained from pleadings filed decades earlier due to appreciation and inflation, the Taxing Master may apply the residual provision for reasonable fees. However, the award of UGX 15,000,000 as instruction fees was excessive considering damages of UGX 5,000,000 and other taxed items. The instruction fees were reduced to UGX 7,000,000 to balance fair remuneration for advocates with avoiding costs that deter access to justice.

Outcome

Taxation appeal partly allowed; instruction fees reduced from UGX 15,000,000 to UGX 7,000,000; total taxed costs reduced from UGX 37,650,000 to UGX 29,650,000

Facts

The respondents sued the appellants for trespass in Mbarara Chief Magistrates Court Civil Suit 36 of 1993, valuing the land at UGX 400,000. The appellants counterclaimed seeking cancellation of the respondents' certificate of title but did not state a value. The Chief Magistrate decided in favour of the respondents in 2017, 24 years after the suit was filed. On appeal to the High Court in 2017, the respondents were awarded general damages of UGX 5,000,000 and costs in the trial court. The parties agreed on all items in the bill of costs except instruction fees. The Taxing Master taxed instruction fees at UGX 15,000,000, bringing total costs to UGX 37,650,000. The appellants appealed, arguing the instruction fees should be UGX 60,000 or alternatively UGX 720,000 based on the stated value or damages awarded.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Taxing Master erred in law and fact when he held that the value of the subject matter could not be ascertained from the pleadings and judgment
  2. Whether the learned Taxing Master exercised his discretion properly in granting the amount of UGX 15,000,000 as instruction fees

Orders

  • The award of the taxing master on item 1 of the bill of costs is set aside and replaced with shillings 7,000,000.
  • The total costs due to the respondents from the appellants now stand at shillings 29,650,000.
  • The parties will each bear their costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Ascertainment of Value of Subject Matter
Where a suit was filed decades earlier and no valuation was conducted at the time of judgment, the Taxing Master may properly apply the residual provision for reasonable fees where the value cannot be ascertained, rather than rely on an outdated valuation in the pleadings that does not reflect appreciation and inflation over time.
Taxation of Costs — Principles — Balancing Fair Remuneration and Access to Justice
In taxing costs, the court must balance the principle that a successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed for costs incurred and that advocates must be adequately remunerated, against the principle that costs must not be allowed to rise to such a level as to confine access to courts only to the wealthy.
Taxation of Costs — Interference with Taxing Master's Discretion — Excessive Award
A court may interfere with a Taxing Master's assessment of costs where the award is manifestly excessive, having regard to the damages awarded, other items taxed, and the need to ensure costs do not deter litigants from seeking redress.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
  • Advocates Act Cap 267 s.62(1)
  • Taxation of Costs (Appeals and References) Regulations Rule 3(1)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Regulation 36
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Regulation 37
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Regulation 38
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Sixth Schedule Section 1 paragraph 1 item (a)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Sixth Schedule item 9(1)

Cases cited (7)

  • Administrators of the Estate of the late Barbara Lakeli Nalubaale Ssali v J.W.B Kiwanuka and Others (High Court Taxation Appeal No. 003 of 2013)
  • MMAKS Advocates and Another v Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (High Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2017)
  • Alnasir Gulam Hussein Virani and Another v Paresh Shukla and Another (High Court Taxation Appeal Nos. 19 and 20 of 2019)
  • Joreth Limited v Kigano & Associates [2002] eKLR
  • Makula International Limited v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11
  • Patrick Makumbi and Another v Sole Electrics (SCCA No. 11 of 1994)
  • Ocaya Faruuk and Others v Odoch Geofrey (HCMC 09 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dudu and 3 Others v Nantongo and 2 Others (Taxation Appeal 17 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 128 (20 October 2023)
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.