Wakilii

Gulu Institute of health science v Bwomu (CIVIL APPEAL No. 0163 OF 2016)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 70 · 2018 Appeal Allowed — Matter Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation ruling on costs in successful judicial review proceedings
Decision
Taxation award set aside and matter remitted to Taxing Officer for re-taxation

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 allowed the appeal and set aside the taxation ruling that awarded UGX 4,616,900 in instruction fees. The court held that the Taxing Officer applied a wrong principle by considering compensatory factors (restitutio in integrum) instead of indemnity principles when assessing costs. The award was inordinately high as instruction fees, and some disbursements were unsupported by evidence. The bill of costs was remitted to the Taxing Officer for re-taxation according to correct principles.

Outcome

Taxation award set aside and matter remitted to Taxing Officer for re-taxation

Facts

The respondent was a student at the appellant Institute in Gulu who successfully completed his Diploma in Clinical Medicine and Community Health in June 2013. The appellant and the Allied Health Examinations Board introduced new entry requirements effective 26 June 2013 and sought to apply them retrospectively to the respondent who had been admitted in 2010. The respondent brought judicial review proceedings seeking mandamus and injunction. The appellant's affidavit in reply was filed out of time and struck off. The court found in the respondent's favour and awarded costs. A taxation ruling of 23 March 2016 taxed the bill of costs at UGX 19,574,320 including instruction fees of UGX 10,000,000. The appellant challenged this as excessive.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer applied the correct principles in assessing instruction fees at UGX 10,000,000.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer applied a wrong principle by considering compensatory factors rather than indemnity principles.
  3. Whether the disbursements allowed were supported by probative evidence.
  4. Whether the costs awarded were manifestly excessive and constituted unjust enrichment.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant.
  • Taxation award set aside.
  • Bill of costs remitted back to the Taxing Officer for taxation.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Principles — Standard of Review on Appeal
Save in exceptional cases, a judge should not interfere with the assessment of a taxing officer as to what constitutes a reasonable fee, as taxing officers have particular fitness and experience to deal with questions of quantum of costs.
Taxation of Costs — Grounds for Judicial Intervention — Wrong Principle
An exceptional case warranting judicial interference arises where the taxing officer applied a wrong principle in assessing costs, which can be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low, and where the error substantially affected the quantum and would cause injustice to a party.
Taxation of Costs — Party and Party Costs — Purpose and Principle of Indemnity
The object of party and party costs is to indemnify the successful party for expenses reasonably incurred in pursuing or defending their rights in court, not to punish the paying party or provide a bonus to the receiving party, and costs operate in the character of an indemnity, not complete compensation.
Taxation of Costs — Wrong Principle — Compensatory versus Indemnity Approach
It is an error of principle for a taxing officer to assess costs on the basis of restitutio in integrum (compensation for loss) rather than on the principle of indemnity (reimbursement of expenses reasonably incurred), as the former is relevant to damages assessment while the latter governs taxation of costs.
Taxation of Costs — Factors in Assessment — Research and Complexity
The mere fact that counsel does research before filing pleadings is not necessarily indicative of case complexity as it may indicate the advocate's unfamiliarity with basic legal principles, and such unfamiliarity should not be turned into an advantage against the adversary in taxation.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Advocates Act s.62
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations r.3
  • Advocates Remuneration Rules r.1(a)(iv)(b)
  • Advocates Remuneration Rules r.7
  • Advocates Remuneration Rules r.10(3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Thomas James Arthur v. Nyeri Electricity Undertaking, [1961] EA 492
  • Tobin and Twomey v. Kerry Foods Ltd., [1999] 1 I.L.R.M. 428 at 432
  • Adams v. London improved Motor Coach Buildirs Ltd., [1921] 1 K.B. 495 at p. 499
  • First American Bank of Kenya v. Shah and others, [2002] 1 EA 64
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd and Another v. Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and others [1972] EA 162

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gulu Institute of health science Vs Bwomu (CIVIL APPEAL No. 0163 OF 2016) [2018] UGHCCD 70 (25 October 2018)
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.