Wakilii

Finca Uganda Limited v Birungi (Taxation Appeal 29 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 184 · 2023 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of bill of costs following successful interlocutory application in the High Court
Decision
Taxing officer's award varied; total costs reduced from UGX 10,490,000 to UGX 6,865,000

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

Held that instruction fees of UGX 5,000,000 awarded by the taxing officer were manifestly excessive without justification, reduced to UGX 2,000,000. Most items on the bill of costs were properly taxed to scale, but items 37, 46, and 51 disallowed. Total taxed costs reduced from UGX 10,490,000 to UGX 6,865,000.

Outcome

Taxing officer's award varied; total costs reduced from UGX 10,490,000 to UGX 6,865,000

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 04 of 2022 claiming the appellant registered a mortgage over land in which she held a spousal interest without her consent. She obtained a temporary injunction in Misc. Application No. 028 of 2022 to stop the sale of the mortgaged property, with costs awarded to her. The respondent's bill of costs was taxed and allowed at UGX 10,490,000. The appellant appealed, contending that instruction fees of UGX 5,000,000 were manifestly excessive, that the overall award was unconscionable, and that numerous items were not taxed in accordance with the regulations.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer erred in awarding instruction fees of UGX 5,000,000 without legal justification.
  2. Whether the costs allowed under various specified items in the respondent's bill were taxed in accordance with the regulations governing taxation of costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Instruction fees revised from UGX 5,000,000 to UGX 2,000,000.
  • Rest of the bill allowed save for items 37, 46 and 51.
  • Total amount allowed for the entire bill revised to UGX 6,865,000.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Judicial Review of Taxing Officer's Discretion — Grounds for Interference
A judge may interfere with a taxing officer's exercise of discretion in awarding costs where there has been an error in principle, or where the fee allowed is so manifestly excessive as to be indicative of the exercise of a wrong principle; questions solely of quantum are matters which taxing officers are particularly fitted to deal with and the court will intervene only in exceptional circumstances.
Taxation of Costs — Rationale for Party-and-Party Costs
Party-and-party costs are awarded as an indemnity to the successful litigant, not as punishment to the losing party; they constitute damages awarded as compensation for the expense incurred by reason of the litigation.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Deviation from Regulatory Minimum
Where the regulations provide a minimum instruction fee of UGX 300,000 for interlocutory applications, an award of UGX 5,000,000 without justification or showing complexity may be considered manifestly excessive; the taxing master has a duty to give substantial reasons for deviations from the regulations.
Costs — Deferment of Taxation Pending Main Suit
It is ordinarily prudent to defer taxation of bills of costs arising from interlocutory applications to the conclusion of the main suit unless costs are required to be taxed and paid before further proceedings, particularly where the interlocutory relief was obtained for the convenience of one party who may ultimately lose the suit.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Advocates Act s.62
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations S.I 267-5 Regulation 3
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Regulation 9(1)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Regulation 10(2)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Rule 12 of 6th Schedule

Cases cited (9)

  • Bank One Ltd v Simbamanyo Estates Ltd (HCMA No. 645 of 2020)
  • Col (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye v Museveni & anor (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Thomas James Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] EA 492
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (S.C. Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Malkinson v Trim [2003] 2 All ER 356
  • Fullerton v Matsqui 74 BCLR (2d) 311
  • Auditor General v Ocip Moses and Others (Taxation Reference No. 89 of 2014)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufactures (SCCA No. 17 of 1993)
  • Homi Dara Adrinwala v Jeanne Hogan & anor [1966] 1 EA 290

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Finca Uganda Limited v Birungi (Taxation Appeal 29 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 184 (15 February 2023)
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.