Ekanya v Nyaketcho (Miscellaneous Appeal 291 of 2023)
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 instruction fees must reflect the stage at which proceedings conclude. Where an election petition is dismissed on a preliminary objection without proceeding to trial on merit, full instruction fees under Schedule 6 Rule 6 are not justified. The taxing master erred in awarding UGX 40,000,000 for defending a preliminary point of law. Applying Schedule 6 Rule 9 by analogy, instruction fees of UGX 6,000,000 were appropriate. Professional fees and disbursements relating to the entire petition were set aside as premature where the matter was remitted for retrial and those costs would be recoverable upon final determination.
Outcome
Appeal allowed; instruction fees reduced from UGX 40,000,000 to UGX 6,000,000; professional fees and disbursements items 2-19 and 32-48 set aside
Facts
The Respondent filed an election petition challenging the Appellant's election as Member of Parliament. Before trial, the Appellant raised a preliminary objection that the petition was incompetent because the supporting affidavit was commissioned by an advocate without a valid practicing certificate. The trial court upheld the objection and dismissed the petition. The Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which overruled the preliminary objection and remitted the matter for trial on merit, awarding costs to the Respondent in both courts. The Respondent applied for taxation of costs. The Registrar awarded UGX 40,000,000 as instruction fees and allowed professional fees and disbursements for items relating to the entire petition. The Appellant appealed the taxation decision, arguing instruction fees should be limited to opposing the preliminary objection and that items relating to the full petition should not yet be awarded.
Issues
- Whether the award of UGX 40,000,000 as instruction fees for opposing a preliminary objection in an election petition was excessive.
- Whether professional fees and disbursements awarded for items relating to the entire election petition (rather than the preliminary objection) should be set aside where the petition was determined on a preliminary point of law that was later overruled on appeal.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Award of UGX 40,000,000 for instruction fees set aside.
- Respondent awarded UGX 6,000,000 (Six Million Shillings) for instruction fees in both courts.
- Awards made under items 2-19 and 32-48 in Taxation Application No. 52 of 2022 set aside.
- Costs of the application awarded to the Appellant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Advocates Act Cap 267 s.62(1)
- Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
- Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeal and References) Regulation S.I 267-5 Regulation 3
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 50 Rule 8
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulation 2018 Schedule 6 Rule 6
- Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations S.I 267-5 Schedule 6 Rule 9
- Parliamentary Elections Act s.1
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
- Parliamentary Elections Rules Rule 15
- Local Governments Act
Cases cited (5)
- Lumweno and Company Advocates v Trans-Africa Assurance Company Limited (Civil Appeal No. 0095 of 2004)
- Jaber Twalib and Another v Global Hardwares Company Limited (HCT Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2016)
- Dison Okumu & 8 others v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Taxation Appeal No. 006 of 2019)
- Kifamute v Uganda (SC Crim. Appeal No. 10/1997)
- Makumbi and another v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd [1990-1994] 1 EA 306
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.