Wakilii

Ekeu Cosmas and Others v Attorney General [2026] UGHC 683

High Court · 2026 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal by chamber summons against the Assistant Registrar's taxation ruling on instruction fees in a re-taxation ordered by an earlier taxation appeal
Decision
Taxation appeal allowed; Assistant Registrar's instruction fee award set aside and substituted with an award of UGX 609,493,243.0544 without remittal

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 where the value of the subject matter is ascertainable, and particularly where it has already been judicially fixed by an earlier order (UGX 30,474,662,154.72), the taxing officer must compute instruction fees by applying the cumulative scale in the 2018 Sixth Schedule and has no open-ended discretion to substitute a figure thought generally reasonable. A substantial reduction unexplained by any lawful basis is an error of principle. The Assistant Registrar's award of UGX 150,000,011.0544 followed no statutory band and was set aside. Rather than remit for a further taxation, the Court substituted its own award, limited to the UGX 609,493,243.0544 claimed, since a party-and-party taxation appeal cannot award more than claimed.

Outcome

Taxation appeal allowed; Assistant Registrar's instruction fee award set aside and substituted with an award of UGX 609,493,243.0544 without remittal

Facts

The applicants succeeded in HCCS No. 59 of 2009 against the Attorney General and were awarded costs. They filed Taxation Application No. 51 of 2023, in which the taxing master applied the old remuneration regime and treated the principal award of UGX 6,353,213,600 as the value of the subject matter, excluding general damages and interest. On appeal in Taxation Appeal No. 1 of 2024, the High Court ordered re-taxation before a different taxing master and directed that the value of the subject matter be UGX 30,474,662,154.72. In the resulting re-taxation, Taxation Application No. 32 of 2024, the Assistant Registrar taxed off UGX 459,493,232 and awarded only UGX 150,000,011.0544 as instruction fees, without demonstrating how that figure derived from the Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations as amended in 2018. The applicants contended the correct instruction fee was UGX 609,493,243.0544. The Attorney General was served through the State Attorney conducting the matter but filed neither an affidavit in reply nor submissions.

Issues

  1. Whether the Attorney General was duly served with the chamber summons and whether the absence of a reply entitled the applicants to the orders sought.
  2. Whether the Assistant Registrar erred in principle in awarding UGX 150,000,011.0544 as instruction fees instead of applying the Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations as amended in 2018 to the judicially determined value of the subject matter.
  3. Whether the Court should remit the bill for further taxation or substitute its own award of instruction fees.

Orders

  • The taxation appeal succeeds.
  • The taxation ruling and award of the Assistant Registrar in Taxation Application No. 32 of 2024 are set aside to the extent they awarded UGX 150,000,011.0544 as instruction fees.
  • Instruction fees are awarded to the Applicants in the sum of UGX 609,493,243.0544.
  • The remaining taxed items, if not challenged, remain undisturbed.
  • The Applicants shall bear the costs of this taxation appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Sixth Schedule Cumulative Scale
Where the value of the subject matter can be determined from the pleadings, settlement, valuation or judgment, instruction fees must be assessed under the Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations as amended in 2018, and the scale is cumulative, so that the 2% rate applies only to the amount exceeding UGX 100,000,000 and not to the entire value.
Statutory Interpretation — Prescribed Statutory Formula — Absence of Discretion in Taxing Officer
Where a schedule prescribes a formula for computing instruction fees, the taxing officer has no open-ended discretion to disregard that formula and substitute a figure considered generally reasonable; the value of the subject matter is the statutory base for calculation, not an ornamental figure.
Civil Procedure — Re-taxation — Binding Effect of Prior Court Order Fixing Value of Subject Matter
An order of the High Court on a taxation appeal fixing the value of the subject matter for re-taxation binds the taxing master, who may not re-open the question of value and must apply the applicable schedule to the value already determined.
Civil Procedure — Taxation Appeals — Error of Principle — Unexplained Reduction of Instruction Fee
A substantial reduction of instruction fees that is not shown to follow from any statutory band, and for which the taxing officer identifies no lawful basis such as the nature of the work, the stage reached or proportionality, is an error of principle warranting interference on appeal.
Civil Procedure — Taxation Appeals — No Judgment by Default — Burden on Appellant
A taxation appeal is not granted by default merely because the respondent files no affidavit in reply or submissions; the court must still satisfy itself that the taxing officer committed an error of principle or made an award that is plainly wrong.
Civil Procedure — Taxation Appeals — Substitution of Award Instead of Remittal — Limit of Amount Claimed
Where the value of the subject matter is settled and the applicable law is clear, the appellate court may substitute its own award of instruction fees instead of remitting the bill for further taxation, but on a party-and-party taxation appeal it cannot award more than the amount claimed even if the statutory formula would yield a higher figure.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Advocates Act s.62(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.79(2)
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations reg.3
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, Sixth Schedule
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, Sixth Schedule rule 1(1)(g)

Cases cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ekeu Cosmas and Others v Attorney General [2026] UGHC 683 (15 June 2026)
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.