Wakilii

Equity Bank (U) Limited v Mugisha (Civil Appeal 1782 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 150 · 2022 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of costs following judgment in Civil Suit No. 0308 of 2016
Decision
Taxation award set aside and matter remitted for fresh taxation inter parties

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 appeal and set aside the taxation award. The court held that a Taxing Officer has a duty to give reasons for taxation decisions, enabling parties to understand the basis of the award and assess prospects of appeal. The failure to provide any explanation or reasons for the amounts taxed off or allowed constituted a material error of law. The bill of costs was remitted for fresh taxation inter parties.

Outcome

Taxation award set aside and matter remitted for fresh taxation inter parties

Facts

The respondent had sued the appellant bank for refund of shs. 220,000,000 following a failed land purchase. By consent, the parties resolved all issues except general damages and interest rate. Judgment was entered on 25 March 2021 awarding the respondent special damages with interest at 18% per annum, general damages of shs. 50,000,000 with interest at 6% per annum, and costs. At a pre-taxation meeting, parties agreed on most items totalling shs. 10,052,500 but disputed instruction fees and VAT. The Taxing Officer proceeded to tax the disputed items and certified costs at shs. 60,407,549.02 on 16 December 2021. The appellant contended it was never served with a taxation hearing notice and the taxation proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in proceeding to tax costs ex parte without notice to the appellant.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer's failure to give reasons for the taxation award constituted an error of law.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Taxation award set aside.
  • Bill of costs remitted to the Taxing Officer to be taxed afresh inter parties.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Duty to Give Reasons
A Taxing Officer has a duty to give reasons for taxation decisions. The reasons must be adequate to show how the decision was reached and must deal with the substantial points raised. Parties are entitled to know on what grounds costs have been awarded, and an appellate court is entitled to assistance by an explicit statement of reasons.
Taxation of Costs — Failure to Give Reasons as Ground for Setting Aside Award
Where a Taxing Officer's reasons are totally lacking or so inadequately expressed as to raise substantial doubt whether the decision was taken after due consideration, this constitutes a material error of law. A judgement debtor is substantially prejudiced where the considerations on which the award is based are not explained sufficiently clearly to enable reasonable assessment of prospects of appeal.
Appeals from Taxation — Grounds for Appellate Intervention
An appellate court will interfere with a Taxing Officer's discretion only where there has been a failure to exercise discretion, failure to take into account a material consideration, an error in principle, or where the decision is so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice. The appellate court is entitled to deference in the absence of an error in law or principle, a palpable and overriding error of fact, or unless the decision is so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice.
Appeals — Wrong Enabling Provision Not Fatal
Citing a wrong enabling provision of law is considered a mere technicality and not fatal to a proceeding if it does not occasion a miscarriage of justice. Where no injustice is occasioned, the court will proceed to consider the appeal on merit.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.12
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.27
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
  • Advocates Act s.62
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations SI 267-5 reg.3
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations SI 267-5 reg.4
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 6th Schedule

Cases cited (22)

  • Mohamed Kalisa v Gladys Nyangire Karumu and Two Others (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 139 of 2013)
  • Hamam Singh Bhogal T/a Hamam Singh & Co. v. Jadva Karsan (1953) 20 EACA 17
  • Baku Raphael v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v. Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 50
  • Kawooya Patrick v. C. Naava [1975] HCB 322
  • East African General Insurance Company Ltd v. Ntende Elizephan K. and five others [1979] HCB 227
  • F.D.Sebamala v. Registered Trustees of Namirembe Diocese and Rt. Rev. Kisekka [1988-90] HCB 114
  • Thomas James Arthur v. Nyeri Electricity Undertaking, [1961] EA 492
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Mbogo and another v. Shah [1968] 1 EA 93
  • National Insurance Corporation v. Mugenyi and Company Advocates [1987] HCB 28
  • Wasswa J. Hannington and another v. Ochola Maria Onyango and three Others [1992-93] HCB 103
  • Devji v. Jinabhai (1934) 1 EACA 89
  • H.K. Shah and another v. Osman Allu (1974) 14 EACA 45
  • Patel v. R. Gottifried (1963) 20 EACA, 81
  • Haji Nadin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)
  • Sheikh Jama v. Dubat Farah [1959] 1 EA 789
  • Hussein Janmohamed and Sons v. Twentsche Overseas Trading Co Ltd [1967] 1 EA 287
  • Re Poyser and Mills Arbitration [1963] 1 All ER 612, [1964] 2 QB 467
  • Stefan v. General Medical Council [1999] 1 WLR 1293
  • Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 2 QB 175 at 191

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Equity Bank (U) Limited v Mugisha (Civil Appeal 1782 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 150 (16 September 2022)
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.