Wakilii

Ekeu & Another v Attorney General (Civil Reference 6 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 669 · 2024 Reference Allowed — Taxation Set Aside AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil reference arising from taxation of costs in Civil Suit No. 59 of 2009
Decision
Taxation award set aside and matter remitted for retaxation before a different Taxing Master

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 a taxing master applied the wrong law in taxing a bill of costs, the entire taxation award must be set aside. The court found that the Taxing Master erred by applying the old Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Rules S.I 267-4 instead of the applicable 2018 Amendment Regulations. The taxation award was set aside and the matter ordered to be retaxed before a different Taxing Master using the correct legal framework.

Outcome

Taxation award set aside and matter remitted for retaxation before a different Taxing Master

Facts

The applicants were successful plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 59 of 2009, wherein they were awarded terminal benefits, general damages, interest and costs. They filed bills of costs for taxation. The Taxing Master allowed joint instruction fees totalling UGX 63,532,132 to be shared between two law firms (Ssemakula & Co. Advocates and Alliance Advocates) that had represented the plaintiffs at different times. The Taxing Master rejected claims for disbursements including transport, feeding costs, and auditor's fees, finding them either unnecessary (transport and feeding for all plaintiffs in a representative suit) or unproven (auditor's fees). The total amount taxed was UGX 13,203,000. Ssemakula & Co. Advocates filed this reference challenging the taxation award, arguing that the Taxing Master applied the old taxation rules instead of the 2018 Amendment Regulations, awarded nothing separately to Ssemakula & Co. for instruction fees, and erroneously rejected disbursements.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxation award by the Taxing Master should be set aside

Orders

  • The taxation award by the learned Assistant Registrar is hereby set aside.
  • The bill in Civil Suit No. 051 of 2023 be retaxed before a different Taxing Master.
  • M/S Semakula & Co. Advocates and Alliance Advocates should come up with a Joint Bill of Costs that shall be taxed.
  • Each party shall bear their costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Application of Correct Legal Framework
A bill of costs must be taxed according to the law applicable at the time the order for costs was made or when the bill is filed, not outdated legislation. Where a taxing master applies the wrong law, the entire taxation proceedings are unfounded in law and must be set aside.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees Where Multiple Advocates Represent Same Party
When costs are awarded in a judgment, they are awarded to the successful party and not to the advocates. Where several advocates represent a successful party at different stages in a suit, the party paying costs pays instruction fees only once in respect of that particular case, irrespective of the number of advocates who handled the matter, unless the court by certificate permits costs for more than one counsel.
Taxation of Costs — Disbursements in Representative Suits
In a representative suit, disbursements for transport and feeding should be limited to what was incurred by the representatives. Where all plaintiffs attend court of their own free will, such costs should not be disbursed to them.
Taxation of Costs — Proof of Disbursements
Claims for disbursements must be specifically proved by production of receipts or vouchers. Where no evidence is adduced to prove a claimed disbursement, it must be disallowed.
Taxation of Costs — Judicial Review of Taxing Master's Discretion
A judge will interfere with a taxing officer's exercise of discretion in exceptional circumstances only: where the taxing officer applied a wrong principle (expressly or by inference from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low), and where the error substantially affected the decision on quantum such that upholding the amount would cause injustice to one of the parties.
Court Orders — Compliance and Variation
A court order must be obeyed unless and until it has been set aside or varied by the court. A party who wishes to act contrary to an existing order must first seek the court's intervention to set aside or vary that order.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (7)

  • Chuck v Cremer (1836) 1 Coop Temp Cott 338
  • Ocen Kassim v Soroti District Land Board and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 01 of 2019)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanal (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Luweno & Co. Advocates v Trans Africa Assurance Co. Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2004)
  • Aisha Agaba v Mable Bakaine (Taxation Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
  • Total (U) Ltd v Rosebell Twinatsiko (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2019)
  • Uganda Bankers Employers Association v National Union of Clerical Commercial Professionals & Technical Employees (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ekeu & Another v Attorney General (Civil Reference 6 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 669 (7 May 2024)
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.