Wakilii

Falcon Estates Limited v Bismillah Trading Co. Limited (Taxation Reference 3 of 2023)

Supreme Court · [2024] UGSC 16 · 2024 Reference Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single Justice of the Supreme Court under Rule 106 of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules challenging the taxing officer's taxation of a bill of costs
Decision
Taxation reference partly succeeds; disbursement items 48–51 taxed off and the taxed bill of costs reduced from UGX 12,650,000 to UGX 11,625,000

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

On a reference under Rule 106 of the Supreme Court Rules, the single Justice held that a judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment save in exceptional cases or where a wrong principle was applied. The instruction fee of UGX 10,000,000 was upheld: where the subject matter has no ascertainable value the taxing officer may exercise discretion, and the easement's importance justified the award. However, the taxing officer applied a wrong principle in allowing disbursements (items 48–51) unsupported by receipts; disbursements are special claims that must be specifically proved. Those items were taxed off, reducing the bill to UGX 11,625,000. The reference partly succeeded.

Outcome

Taxation reference partly succeeds; disbursement items 48–51 taxed off and the taxed bill of costs reduced from UGX 12,650,000 to UGX 11,625,000

Facts

The respondent had sued the applicant in the High Court (Civil Suit No. 192 of 2015) seeking a declaration of an easement over an access road across the applicant's land. The applicant obtained dismissal of the suit for disclosing no cause of action, but the Court of Appeal reinstated it. The applicant's further appeal to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2020) was dismissed with costs to the respondent. As the successful party, the respondent filed a bill of costs totalling UGX 29,340,200, which the Deputy Registrar, sitting as taxing officer, taxed down to UGX 12,650,000 on 14 July 2022. The taxing officer allowed UGX 10,000,000 as instruction fees and allowed certain disbursements (items 48–51, 53) totalling about UGX 1,000,000 despite the respondent producing no receipts. The applicant, dissatisfied, referred the taxation to a single Justice contending the taxed costs were excessive and that several items, including the unreceipted disbursements, ought not to have been allowed.

Issues

  1. Whether the bill of costs as taxed by the taxing officer was manifestly excessive.
  2. Whether the instruction fees of UGX 10,000,000 allowed where the subject matter had no ascertainable value were properly assessed.
  3. Whether the taxing officer applied the correct principle in allowing disbursements for which no receipts or proof of payment were produced.

Orders

  • Reference partly succeeds.
  • Items 48, 49, 50 and 51, claimed as disbursements, are taxed off for lack of proof.
  • All other items remain as taxed by the taxing officer.
  • The total bill of costs is reduced to Uganda Shillings 11,625,000.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion — Exceptional Cases and Wrong Principle
A judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of a reasonable fee save in exceptional cases, namely where the taxing officer applied a wrong principle (which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low) and the error substantially affected the quantum such that upholding the award would cause injustice.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Subject Matter of No Ascertainable Value
Where the value of the subject matter cannot be determined, the taxing officer may use his or her discretion to assess a reasonable instruction fee, having regard to the nature, importance and difficulty of the matter and the interest of the parties; there is no magic formula for calculating instruction fees and each case is decided on its own merits.
Taxation of Costs — Disbursements — Requirement of Proof
Disbursements are special claims that must be specifically proved; under the Third Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules receipts for all disbursements must be produced at taxation and none unpaid may be allowed, so a taxing officer who allows disbursements on inference rather than evidence applies a wrong principle and such items will be taxed off.
Taxation of Costs — Reference under Rule 106 — Form and Statement of Grounds
A reference to a single Justice under Rule 106 of the Supreme Court Rules may be made formally or informally, but should set out the grounds on which it is preferred; nonetheless, applying the principle of substantive justice, a court may resolve a reference on its merits where the grounds can be discerned from the party's submissions and the opposing party had opportunity to reply.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (15)

  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 11
  • Patrick Makumbi & Another v Sole Electric (Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Ghulam Hussein Habib Virani & Nasmudin Habib Virani (Civil Reference No. 6 of 1995)
  • Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 EA 92
  • Tebajanga Tony & 3 Others v Gukina Sarah (Civil Reference No. 9 of 2022)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Uganda Tax Operators & Drivers Association v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Reference No. 25 of 2017)
  • Paul Kawanga Ssemogerere & Another v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 5 of 2001)
  • Muwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General (Civil Reference No. 38 of 2017)
  • Haji Haruna Mulangwa v Shariff Osman (Taxation Reference No. 3 of 2004) [2005] ULSLR 210
  • Bhatt v Singh [1962] EA 103
  • In re Taxation of Costs; In re A Solicitor [1943] 1 All ER 592
  • Polak v Marchioness of Winchester [1956] 1 WLR 818
  • Joyce Lubega v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Taxation Appeal No. 17 of 2020)
  • Hon. Sam Njuba v Hon. Sitenda Sebalu (Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Falcon Estates Limited v Bismillah Trading Co. Limited (Taxation Reference 3 of 2023) [2024] UGSC 16 (24 April 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.