Wakilii

Githunguri and Collins Architechts v Uganda Communications Commission (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1017 of 2000)

High Court · [1999] UGCOMMC 100 · 1999 Appeal Allowed — Matter Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal against taxation ruling on bailiff's bill of costs arising from execution proceedings
Decision
Taxation ruling set aside and bill of costs referred back to Registrar for re-taxation using the correct statutory scale

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 held that the Registrar erred in applying the 6% professional fee scale for attachment of movable property where no attachment was actually executed and the warrant related to immovable property. The correct scale was 1(A) of S.I. 15/91, which applies when money is tendered before or shortly after attachment. The taxation ruling was set aside and the bill of costs referred back to the Registrar for re-taxation using the correct scale.

Outcome

Taxation ruling set aside and bill of costs referred back to Registrar for re-taxation using the correct statutory scale

Facts

The parties entered a consent judgment on April 5, 2000 requiring Uganda Communications Commission to pay US $400,000 within 30 days. When the judgment debtor failed to pay, a warrant of execution was issued on June 8, 2000. Court bailiffs were appointed and wrote a demand letter on June 15, 2000 threatening to attach, evict and advertise for sale the judgment debtor's immovable property at Plot 19-21 Port Bell Road, Nakawa. The judgment debtor paid the full amount on the same day the bailiffs wrote the letter. The bailiffs then filed a bill of costs totaling shs 29,194,000, claiming professional fees of 6% of US $300,000 (shs 28,800,000) plus other expenses. The Registrar taxed the bill and awarded shs 8,118,000, including shs 8,000,000 for professional fees. The judgment creditor appealed the taxation ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxation ruling awarding shs 8,118,000 to court bailiffs was contrary to law.
  2. Whether the costs awarded to the bailiffs were manifestly excessive and contrary to the principles of taxation.
  3. Whether the Registrar applied the correct scale of fees under the Court Bailiffs Rules as amended by S.I. No. 15 of 1991.
  4. Whether professional fees of 6% should apply where no attachment of property was actually carried out.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Taxation ruling of the learned Registrar dated July 19, 2000 set aside.
  • Bill of costs referred back to the learned Registrar for re-taxation.
  • Costs of the appeal to be borne by the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Court Bailiffs' Fees — Application of Statutory Fee Scales
A court bailiff is entitled to remuneration for services in accordance with the scale of fees specified in the second schedule to the Court Bailiffs Rules, and where the Rules prescribe a specific fee scale using the mandatory word 'shall', the Registrar must apply the correct scale, though the court retains discretion to adjust fees judicially based on the work done and complexity of execution.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Court Bailiffs' Fees — Distinction Between Movable and Immovable Property
The 6% professional fee scale provided in the second schedule to the Court Bailiffs Rules of 1987 applies only to attachment of movable property. Where the warrant of attachment relates to immovable property and no actual attachment is carried out, the 6% rate should not be applied.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Court Bailiffs' Fees — Payment Before Attachment
Where the sum for which execution has been issued is tendered to a bailiff before or shortly after attaching property, the applicable fee scale is item 1(A) of the Court Bailiffs Rules as amended by S.I. 15/91, which prescribes a fixed fee of shs 9,000, and not the percentage-based scale for actual attachment of immovable property.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Discretion of Taxing Officer — Judicial Exercise
A taxing officer has discretion in matters of taxation but must exercise the discretion judicially and not whimsically. The officer must have the basic prescribed fees in mind and give reasons permitted by the Remuneration Rules for increasing or reducing fees. An appellate court will not interfere with an assessment of costs unless the taxing officer misdirected himself on a matter of principle or the quantum is manifestly extravagant.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • Patrick Makumbi and Awori v Sole Electric (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
  • Alexander Okello v Kayondo and Co. Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Githunguri and Collins Architechts v Uganda Communications Commission (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1017 of 2000) [1999] UGCommC 100 (31 December 1999)
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.