Wakilii

Edward Rubanga and Others v Basijasha & Co. Advocates (Miscellaneous Appeal 15 of 2017)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 307 · 2018 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Taxing Master's award of costs arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 289 of 2013
Decision
Taxation appeal partially allowed; instruction fees significantly reduced; total award revised downward

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

The court held that the Taxing Officer's failure to deliver a written ruling was not fatal where the taxed bill of costs was on record and the appellants could identify items for challenge. The appellants' failure to file written submissions in reply after being served with the respondent's submissions for over a year amounted to default justifying ex parte taxation. However, the instruction fee of UGX 777,030,877/= was reduced to UGX 50,000,000/= as the original amount was manifestly excessive. The appeal partially succeeded, reducing the total award from UGX 7,694,459,899/= to UGX 1,027,429,088/=.

Outcome

Taxation appeal partially allowed; instruction fees significantly reduced; total award revised downward

Facts

The appellants (Edward Rubanga and 347 others) appealed against a Taxing Master's award of UGX 7,694,459,899/= as costs in Miscellaneous Cause No. 289 of 2013. The underlying matter concerned an application to tax an advocate's bill of costs arising from representation of 348 litigants. That application had been dismissed for want of a representative order. The respondent advocate firm (Basijasha & Co.) had successfully represented the appellants in litigation resulting in a decree of UGX 14,340,643,214/=. A dispute arose over the legal fees payable. The Taxing Master awarded instruction fees of UGX 777,030,877/= and a total bill of approximately UGX 7.69 billion. The appellants challenged this award on three grounds: absence of a reasoned ruling; procedural irregularities in accepting late submissions; and manifest excessiveness of the instruction fees.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in law and in fact when he awarded UGX 7,694,459,899/= without making or delivering a reasoned ruling.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in law and in fact in accepting written submissions from the respondent that were filed late and failing to communicate notice of extension of time to the appellant's counsel.
  3. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in law and in fact when he awarded UGX 777,030,877/= as instruction fees, which amount was manifestly excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal partially allowed.
  • Instruction fees reduced from UGX 777,030,877/= to UGX 50,000,000/=.
  • Total bill of costs allowed at UGX 1,027,429,088/= only.
  • No order as to costs; each party to meet its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Requirement for Reasoned Ruling
Where a taxation officer delivers a taxation certificate based on a bill of costs on record, failure to deliver a separate written ruling does not render the award invalid if the dissatisfied party can identify specific items for challenge on appeal.
Taxation of Costs — Duty to Provide Reasons
Where a taxation officer delivers a summarized taxation ruling, he or she should at a minimum provide an outline of the principles applied, a summary of factual conclusions about the items, and a statement of reasons for the quantum awarded.
Taxation of Costs — Ex Parte Taxation — Default by Counsel
Under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules, failure by an advocate to file written submissions in reply after being served with the opposing party's submissions for over a year amounts to failure to attend taxation after notice, entitling the taxation officer to proceed ex parte.
Taxation of Costs — Right to Fair Hearing — Procedural Waiver
A party who is served with written submissions but fails to respond and allows over a year to pass before the taxation decision cannot complain that he was denied the right to be heard; such failure constitutes a waiver of the right to participate.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Scale Fees and Discretionary Enhancement
Although the scale fee for an application under the Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations is a starting point, the taxation officer has discretion to award higher instruction fees based on factors including the amount of work involved, the skill and time required, the importance and difficulty of the case, and the amount at stake.
Taxation of Costs — Appeals — Standard of Appellate Interference
Save in exceptional cases, a judge on appeal does not interfere with the assessment of what the taxing officer considers to be a reasonable fee unless the award is so high or so low as to amount to an injury to one party or constitutes a manifest injustice.
Advocates' Fees — Instruction Fees — Manifestly Excessive Award
An instruction fee of UGX 777,030,877/= arising from an application (albeit one at the foot of multi-party litigation with a decree value exceeding UGX 14 billion) was manifestly excessive and reduced to UGX 50,000,000/= on appeal, reflecting the principle that costs must be kept to a reasonable level to preserve access to justice.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (15)

  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga (High Court Bulletin 77 of 1982)
  • Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electric (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd [1972] 1 EA 162
  • Simpsons Motor Sales Ltd v London Corporation (1964) 1 AL
  • Ahmed Brothers Ltd v Bhimji Bros & Co. Ltd [1967] EA 492
  • Auditor General & Attorney General v Ssenkima (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2014)
  • Taj Deen Abdel Baki v Associated Engineering (U) Ltd [1972] 1 EA 354
  • Dominica & Ors v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5 of 2014)
  • Manharlal Thakkar v Bahati Mark & Anor (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 188 of 2013)
  • Shumuk Springs Development Ltd v Mwebesa Katatumba & 5 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2012)
  • Nalunga Norah Vs Stephen Ssekiwunga Moses & Anor
  • Yasin Nyanzi case [UNSEEN case]
  • Hon. Justice Murangira and Others v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2017)
  • Agnes Lyazi v Lydia Kanta Rutabandwa & Anor (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Edward Rubanga and Others v Basijasha & Co. Advocates (Miscellaneous Appeal 15 of 2017) [2018] UGHCCD 307 (5 April 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.