Wakilii

Electoral Commission & Anor v Abdu Katuntu (Misc. Appeals No. 1 of 2009&2 of 2010)

High Court · [2010] UGHC 119 · 2010 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference from taxation of costs in election petition, challenging Taxing Master's award as excessive
Decision
Taxing Master's award set aside and substituted with reduced award of UGX 30,661,500

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 High Court allowed the reference and reduced the Taxing Master's award from UGX 80,690,000 to UGX 30,661,500. The court held that instruction fees should cover all preparatory work including perusal and drawing of documents (items 2-165), which should not be taxed separately. The instruction fee of UGX 60 million was found manifestly excessive and reduced to UGX 25 million, considering principles established in taxation cases and the need to ensure access to courts in Uganda's young democracy without excessive costs acting as a barrier to electoral challenges.

Outcome

Taxing Master's award set aside and substituted with reduced award of UGX 30,661,500

Facts

The respondent successfully challenged the 2nd appellant's election to Parliament for Bugweri County in Election Petition No. 007 of 2006, winning both at the High Court and Court of Appeal. He filed a bill of costs which the Taxing Master taxed and allowed at UGX 80,690,000, comprising UGX 60,000,000 instruction fees, UGX 17,000,000 for items 2-165, UGX 3,046,000 for items 166-204, and UGX 3,715,500 for disbursements. The appellants brought two separate references challenging this award as excessive. The respondent, though served through his advocates M/s Lukwago & Co., filed no affidavit in reply to either application. The court consolidated both applications and heard them ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Master erred in awarding UGX 60,000,000 as instruction fees in an election petition.
  2. Whether items 2-165 of the bill of costs should have been collapsed under instruction fees rather than taxed separately.
  3. Whether the total award of UGX 80,690,000 was manifestly excessive.
  4. Whether the claim for telephone and photocopying expenses of UGX 1,600,000 was properly substantiated.

Orders

  • Reference allowed.
  • Items 2-165 of the bill of costs taxed off as they should be covered under instruction fees.
  • Instruction fees reduced from UGX 60,000,000 to UGX 25,000,000.
  • Total bill allowed at UGX 30,661,500 (comprising instruction fees of UGX 25,000,000, items 166-204 at UGX 3,046,000, and disbursements of UGX 2,615,500).
  • Disbursements for telephone and photocopying reduced from UGX 1,600,000 to UGX 500,000 due to lack of supporting evidence.
  • Costs of the reference to be borne by the respondent, to be deducted from the amount awarded.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Scope
Instruction fees should cover all the advocate's work including taking instructions and all preparatory work necessary for presenting the case for trial or appeal, including perusal and drawing of documents.
Taxation of Costs — References — Grounds for Interference
The court will only interfere with an award of costs by a taxing officer if such costs are so low or so high that they amount to an injustice to one of the parties.
Taxation of Costs — Principles — Access to Justice
Costs must not be allowed to rise to such a level as to confine access to courts only to the rich, and in the context of election petitions, costs should not discourage future candidates in Uganda's young democracy.
Taxation of Costs — Assessment of Instruction Fees
The correct approach in assessing instruction fees is to envisage a hypothetical counsel capable of conducting the particular case effectively but unable or unwilling to insist on the particularly high fee sometimes demanded by counsel of pre-eminent reputation, and estimate what fee this hypothetical character would be content to take.
Taxation of Costs — Excessive Awards
An instruction fee is manifestly excessive if it is out of proportion with the value and importance of the suit and the work involved, considering factors such as the length and complexity of the case, the preparation and research required, and the amount of subject matter involved.
Taxation of Costs — Disbursements — Proof
Claims for disbursements such as telephone and photocopying expenses must be supported by evidence in the form of receipts or telephone print outs; absent such proof, only a nominal sum may be awarded.
Election Petitions — Taxation of Costs — Special Considerations
In taxing costs for election petitions, the court must consider that election petitions are of great public importance, involve significant work by advocates, but should not discourage prospective candidates from competing in the electoral process through excessive cost awards.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (8)

  • Premchand Raichand Ltd & Anor v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & Ors [1972] EA 162
  • Akisoferi Ogola v Akika Othieno & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1999)
  • Obiga Kania v Kasiano Wadri & Anor (Civil Reference No. 32 of 2004)
  • Ishanga Ndyanabo Longino v Bitahwa Nyine (Civil Reference No. 16 of 2003)
  • Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
  • Simpson Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation (1964) 3 All ER 833
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Alexander Okello v M/s Kayondo & Company Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Electoral Commission & Anor Vs Abdu Katuntu (Misc. Appeals No. 1 of 2009&2 of 2010) [2010] UGHC 119 (3 November 2010)
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.