Wakilii

Ekeu & Another v Attorney General (Taxation Appeal 1 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 668 · 2024 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Assistant Registrar's taxation ruling
Decision
Taxation set aside and remitted to a different Taxing Master for retaxation under the 2018 Regulations using the correct value of the subject matter

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 Assistant Registrar erred in applying the old Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I 267-4 instead of the 2018 Amendment Regulations. Liability to pay costs accrues when a court makes an order for costs, not when proceedings commence. Since the judgment awarding costs was delivered in 2023, the 2018 Regulations applied. The Registrar also erred by excluding damages and interest when determining the value of the subject matter for instruction fees. The judgment sum includes all orders: terminal benefits, damages, and interest. The taxation was set aside and ordered to be retaxed.

Outcome

Taxation set aside and remitted to a different Taxing Master for retaxation under the 2018 Regulations using the correct value of the subject matter

Facts

The appellants (over 3,000 plaintiffs) had successfully sued in HCCS No. 59 of 2009 and were awarded costs. They filed Taxation Application No. 51 of 2023 before the Assistant Registrar. The judgment in their favour was delivered on 8 September 2023 and awarded UGX 6,234,463,628 in terminal benefits, UGX 3,000,000 to each plaintiff as damages, and 8% interest on the terminal benefits. The Assistant Registrar taxed the bill using the old SI 267-4 Regulations and determined the value of the subject matter at UGX 6,234,463,628 (terminal benefits only), excluding damages and interest. Dissatisfied, the appellants filed this appeal out of time on 19 January 2024. The respondent filed submissions in breach of an exparte order.

Issues

  1. Whether the Assistant Registrar erred when she used the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation) Regulations S.I 267-4 during the taxation hearing.
  2. Whether the learned Registrar erred when she rejected to consider the damages and interest when assessing the value of the subject matter.
  3. Whether the learned Assistant Registrar applied the wrong principles of taxation in Miscellaneous Application No. 51 of 2023.

Orders

  • The taxation ruling/orders made by the Assistant Registrar on 31 October 2023 are set aside.
  • The bill in Civil Suit No. 051 of 2023 be retaxed before a different Taxing Master.
  • The value of the subject matter to be used shall be UGX 30,474,662,154.72.
  • Each party shall bear their costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Applicable Law — Date when Liability Accrues
When determining which taxation regulations apply, the critical date is when the court made the order for costs, not when proceedings commenced. Liability to pay costs accrues when the court makes an order for costs; the process of taxation merely determines quantum. Therefore, if a judgment awarding costs is delivered while the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 are in force, those Regulations apply to the taxation even if the suit was filed before 2018.
Taxation of Costs — Value of Subject Matter — Computation from Judgment
Where the claim or value of the subject matter can be determined from the judgment, the judgment sum includes all orders made by the court: the principal award, damages awarded, and interest. A judgment is the court's final determination of the rights and obligations of the parties in a case. For purposes of calculating instruction fees under the Sixth Schedule, the taxing officer must aggregate all monetary awards in the judgment, not limit assessment to the principal sum only.
Taxation of Costs — Taxing Officer's Discretion — Ascertainable Subject Matter
Where the value of the subject matter is ascertainable from the judgment or pleadings according to the prescribed scale, the taxing officer has no discretion to vary the instruction fees. The officer must simply apply the arithmetic formula provided in the Sixth Schedule.
Statutory Interpretation — Retrospectivity — Amendment of Regulations
Unless the terms of a statute or regulations expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation. Where a statute is amended while a matter is pending, in the absence of a contrary intention, the rights of the parties must be decided in accordance with the statutory provisions in force at the relevant time when the cause of action or liability crystallised.
Time — Extension of Time — Validation of Belated Steps — Inherent Powers
Where an appeal is filed out of time but the applicable statute does not specify consequences or provide a remedy for late filing, the court may exercise its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to extend time by validation. Time may be enlarged by validating a belated step where it does not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right. Mistakes or dilatory conduct of counsel should not be visited on the litigant, and the court will focus on administering justice rather than further protracting litigation.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (18)

  • Total (U) Limited v Rosebel Twinamasiko (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2019)
  • Uganda Bankers (Employers Association) v National Union of Clerical Commercial Professionals and Technical Employees (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1996) [1998] KALR 388
  • Green Pastures Ltd v Cooperative Bank in Liquidation (Miscellaneous Application No. 172 of 2015)
  • Western Highland Creameries Ltd and Lee Ngugi v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Consolidated Civil Appeal Nos. 78 and 79 of 2014)
  • Chuck Vs Cremer (1836) 1 Coop Temp Cott 338, 47 ER 884
  • Ocen Kassim v Soroti District Land Board & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2019)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
  • Ggoloba Godfrey v Harriet Kizito (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2006)
  • Zam Nalumansi v Sulaiman Bale (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 2 of 1999)
  • Shanti v. Hindocha and others [1973] I EA 207
  • Mansukhalal Ramji Karia and Crane Finance Co Ltd v Attorney General and two others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 1 of 2003)
  • Godfrey Magezi and another v Sudhir Rupaleria (2) (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 10 of 2002)
  • Crane Finance Co Ltd v Makerere Properties Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2001)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanal (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority v Edulink Holdings Ltd and 2 others (High Court Civil Appeal No. 178 of 2021)
  • Mayanja Joshua and 70 others v Wante Samuel and 60 others (High Court Civil Suit No. 497 of 2018)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd & 2 Ors v Western Highland Creameries Ltd & Anor (Taxation Appeal No. 5 of 2013) [2013] UGCommC 77
  • Luweno & Co Advocates v Trans Africa Assurance Company Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ekeu & Another v Attorney General (Taxation Appeal 1 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 668 (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.