Wakilii

Gulam Hussein Virani & Another v Shukla & Another (TAXATION APPEAL NO. 19 & 20 OF 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 120 · 2020 Appeals Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated references under section 62 of the Advocates Act from a decision of the taxing officer in taxation application arising from a dismissed civil suit
Decision
Both taxation appeals dismissed with no order as to costs

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 where a suit seeks only declaratory orders without quantified claims, the taxing officer is not bound to determine instruction fees based on the value of the subject matter asserted by the defendant. The value of the subject matter must be determined from the amount claimed in the plaint or the judgment, not from extraneous evidence. The taxing officer properly exercised discretion in awarding UGX 30,000,000 as instruction fees, considering the matter involved three applications and was dismissed for want of prosecution. Both appeals dismissed.

Outcome

Both taxation appeals dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The appellants/respondents were sued by the respondents/appellants seeking declarations and injunctions to halt construction of an apartment block. The appellants had submitted building plans to Kampala Capital City Authority which were approved. The respondents challenged the approval on technical grounds and sought five declaratory orders, claiming the construction infringed their right to privacy and environmental easement. The respondents applied for interim and temporary injunctions, both of which were dismissed. The main suit was eventually dismissed for want of prosecution. The respondents' bill of costs was taxed at UGX 101,471,000, including instruction fees of UGX 30,000,000. Both parties appealed the taxation decision — the appellants contesting that instruction fees should have been based on the construction value of UGX 11,961,823,220, and the respondents contesting the award as excessive.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer erred in refusing to determine instruction fees on the basis of the value of the subject matter as claimed by the defendants.
  2. Whether the taxing officer's award of UGX 30,000,000 as instruction fees was illegal and unreasonable.
  3. Whether the total taxation award of UGX 101,471,000 was unreasonable and manifestly excessive.

Orders

  • Both appeals (references) dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Determination of Instruction Fees — Value of Subject Matter
Where a suit seeks only declaratory orders without quantified claims, the value of the subject matter for purposes of determining instruction fees must be ascertained from the amount claimed in the plaint or from the judgment, and not from extraneous evidence such as the defendant's valuation of property that is the subject of the dispute.
Taxation of Costs — Exercise of Discretion by Taxing Officer
A judge will not interfere with the assessment of a taxing officer save in exceptional cases where it is shown that the taxing officer applied a wrong principle, which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low, and that the error substantially affected the decision on quantum causing injustice to one of the parties.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees Where No Value Claimed
Where no amounts are claimed in a plaint and cannot be ascertained from the judgment, the taxing officer has discretion to determine instruction fees having regard to the complexity of the case, the work required, and the principle that instruction fees should not be less than the minimum prescribed under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.
Taxation of Costs — Assessment of Complexity
The complexity of a matter for purposes of taxation is determined from the proceedings and the manner in which the case was prosecuted. Where a matter is dismissed for want of prosecution, alleged novel issues that were never subjected to litigation cannot be considered in assessing complexity.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Khng Thian v Riduan bin Yusof [2005] 1 SLR(R) 130
  • Electoral Commission & Another v Abdul Katuntu (HCMA No. 001 of 2009)
  • Patrick Makumbi & Another vs Sole Electronics

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gulam Hussein Virani & Another v Shukla & Another (TAXATION APPEAL NO. 19 & 20 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 120 (22 May 2020)
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.