Wakilii

Ebrahim.A.Kassim Sherali Ahamed Kassam Onali Allarakhia v Habre International Ltd [2000] UGSC 5

Supreme Court · 2000 Reference Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single judge of the Supreme Court on taxation of costs under Rule 105, arising from Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1999
Decision
Reference partly allowed; taxed bill of costs reduced from Shs 47,992,500 to Shs 22,992,500

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

On a reference under Rule 105, the single judge held that the misnomer between the party named in the decree and the party that lodged the bill was not fatal, the identity of the parties being clear, and that Article 126(2)(e) precluded undue regard to technicality. No costs should have been awarded on a counterclaim the trial court never determined. While the taxing master correctly stated the governing principles, his instruction-fee awards of Shs 30 million (item 3) and Shs 15 million (item 12) were in all the circumstances manifestly excessive given a subject value of Shs 70 million; they were reduced to Shs 15 million and Shs 5 million respectively, lowering the taxed bill to Shs 22,992,500.

Outcome

Reference partly allowed; taxed bill of costs reduced from Shs 47,992,500 to Shs 22,992,500

Facts

Habre International Ltd had developed premises on a site allowed by the Custodian Board after a 1985 fire. In 1992 the applicants repossessed the premises as former owners under the Expropriated Properties Act and served notice to quit. Habre claimed Shs 70,000,000 for its developments; the applicants offered only Shs 10 million, which Habre rejected, suing instead in the High Court and winning. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the High Court lacked original jurisdiction because Habre had not complied with the Act. The Supreme Court allowed Habre's appeal with costs in the Supreme Court and the courts below. Habre filed a bill of costs of Shs 87,470,500, which the Registrar (taxing master) taxed at Shs 47,992,500, including Shs 30 million instruction fee for lodging the appeal (item 3) and Shs 15 million for arguing additional grounds (item 12). Dissatisfied, the applicants referred the taxation to a single judge of the Supreme Court on seven grounds.

Issues

  1. Whether a bill of costs lodged in a name slightly different from that on the decree is fatally defective.
  2. Whether costs could properly be awarded in respect of a counterclaim that was not considered by the trial court or the Supreme Court.
  3. Whether the taxing master's instruction-fee awards of Shs 30 million (item 3) and Shs 15 million (item 12) were manifestly excessive and a misdirection on principle.

Orders

  • Grounds 2, 4 and 5 of the reference succeed; grounds 1 and 7 fail; grounds 3 and 6 abandoned.
  • Instruction fee under item 3 reduced from Shs 30,000,000 to Shs 15,000,000.
  • Instruction fee under item 12 reduced from Shs 15,000,000 to Shs 5,000,000.
  • Taxed bill of Shs 47,992,500 adjusted to a balance of Shs 22,992,500.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the reference and of the proceedings before the taxing master.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Reference to a judge under Rule 105 — Grounds
A reference against a taxing master's decision lies only on a point of law or principle, or on the ground that the bill as taxed is in all the circumstances manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate.
Costs — Instruction fee — Manifestly excessive award — Exercise of taxing master's discretion
Although the assessment of an instruction fee in the Supreme Court lies in the taxing master's discretion, that discretion must be exercised judicially with regard to the value of the subject matter and the public interest; an award disproportionate to the value involved is manifestly excessive and a misdirection on principle warranting reduction.
Costs — Counterclaim not determined — No costs awardable
No costs may be awarded in respect of a counterclaim that was not considered or determined by the trial court or on appeal.
Costs — Misnomer of party on bill of costs — Effect of Article 126(2)(e)
A slight discrepancy between the name of the party in whose favour the decree was entered and the name lodging the bill of costs is not fatal where the identity of the parties is clear, the court being enjoined to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 105
  • Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 104(2)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 87(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court, Third Schedule, para 2(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court, Third Schedule, para 2(3)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court, Third Schedule, para 9(2) and (3)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court, Third Schedule, para 16
  • Expropriated Properties Act No. 9 of 1982 s.11(2)
  • Expropriated Properties Act No. 9 of 1982 s.14(1)
  • Expropriated Properties (Repossession and Disposal) Regulations 1983, Reg 8(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)

Cases cited (3)

  • Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & Others (No. 3) [1972] EA 162
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Bishari t/a Isaac Trading Store v Vita Foam (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 13 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ebrahim.A.Kassim Sherali Ahamed Kassam Onali Allarakhia v Habre International Ltd [2000] UGSC 5 (12 July 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.