Wakilii

Emaku and Another v Emalu Ojamuge (Taxation Appeal 7 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 818 · 2024 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation award of Deputy Registrar arising from taxation of a bill of costs in Civil Suit No. 0028 of 2018
Decision
Instruction fees reduced; other taxed items upheld; total taxation award reduced from UGX 86,932,800 to UGX 36,932,800

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 taxing master erred in awarding instruction fees of UGX 70,000,000 based on an unproven property valuation of over UGX 1 billion and wrongly applied Regulation 6(2) without identifying any complexity or exceptional importance. Instruction fees were reduced to UGX 20,000,000. The court declined to interfere with other taxed items including attendance fees and disbursements for travel, finding the taxing master exercised his discretion judicially on those matters.

Outcome

Instruction fees reduced; other taxed items upheld; total taxation award reduced from UGX 86,932,800 to UGX 36,932,800

Facts

The respondent successfully sued the appellants in Civil Suit No. 0028 of 2018 for trespass, eviction, and declaratory orders concerning land formerly expropriated under the Departed Asians' Property Custodian Board regime. The suit property (LRV 142 Folio 14, Plot 18 Gweri Road, Soroti) had been allocated to the respondent's grandmother by DAPCB, later repossessed by the former owner in 1995, then allocated to respondent's mother by Soroti District Land Board, and finally allocated to the respondent in 2017 after his mother's offer lapsed. Following judgment for the respondent, counsel filed a bill of costs claiming UGX 140,000,000 instruction fees. The Deputy Registrar taxed the bill and awarded UGX 86,932,800 including UGX 70,000,000 instruction fees. The appellants appealed, contesting the quantum as excessive and claiming the taxing master applied wrong principles.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's bill of costs was rightly taxed following the provisions of the law.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Appeal partly allowed.
  • Instruction fees reduced from UGX 70,000,000 to UGX 20,000,000.
  • Items 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 43 remain as taxed at UGX 100,000 each.
  • Item 45 remains as taxed at UGX 200,000.
  • Items 56-70 (travel disbursements) remain as taxed at UGX 750,000 each.
  • Final taxation award substituted from UGX 86,932,800 to UGX 36,932,800.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Determination of Value of Subject Matter
Where a suit seeks declaratory orders concerning property without pleading a monetary claim or adducing valuation evidence, instruction fees must be calculated based on the value of the claim or question in dispute and not an unproven assertion of property value made for the first time during taxation proceedings.
Taxation of Costs — Special Fee for Complexity
A taxing officer awarding a special fee under Regulation 6(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations must clearly identify the specific elements of complexity or exceptional importance and describe how these factors warrant the special fee; failure to specify constitutes application of a wrong principle.
Taxation of Costs — Production of Receipts for Disbursements
Under Regulation 51 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules, production of receipts for disbursements charged in a bill of costs is required only if the taxing officer deems it necessary; where the taxing officer does not require production, failure to produce receipts is not grounds to set aside the taxed disbursements.
Taxation Appeals — Grounds for Interference
A judge on appeal will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of costs unless it is shown that the taxing officer exercised or applied a wrong principle, which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low, and the error substantially affected the decision on quantum such that upholding it would cause injustice.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Advocates Act s.62(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.79(1)(b)
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) Appeal and Reference Regulations r.3
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations r.6
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations r.13
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations r.51
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations r.57
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 6th Schedule Item 1(1)

Cases cited (13)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (SC Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Makumbi and Another v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd [1990-1994] 1 EA 306
  • Raichand v Quarry Services of East Africa Limited [1972] EA 162
  • Nalumansi v Lule (SC Civil Application No. 12 of 1992)
  • Hashjam v Zanab [1957] EA 255
  • Kabanda v Kananura Melvin Consulting Engineers (SC Civil Application No. 24 of 1993)
  • Steel Construction and Petroleum Engineering (EA) Limited v Uganda Sugar Factory Limited [1970] EA 141
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (SC Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Republic v The Minister for Agriculture ex parte W'Njuguna and Others [2006] 1 EA 359
  • Joyce Lubega v Century Bottling Co Ltd (Taxation Appeal No. 17 of 2020)
  • Juliet Kabugo v Uganda National Roads Authority (Misc. Appeal No. 43 of 2020)
  • Aisha Agaba v Mable Bakaine (Taxation Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
  • Simba Properties Investments Co Limited and 5 Others v Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and 6 Others (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Emaku and Another v Emalu Ojamuge (Taxation Appeal 7 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 818 (27 August 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.