Wakilii

Haba v Bishaka (Civil Appeal 33 of 2011)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 126 · 2022 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of costs by taxing officer
Decision
Appeal allowed; bill of costs reduced from UGX 9,100,000 to UGX 2,222,000

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 a judge will not alter fees allowed by a taxing officer unless a wrong principle was applied resulting in manifestly excessive or low amounts. The court found that the taxing officer erred in applying wrong principles and allowed excessive fees not in accordance with the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123-1982 Sixth Schedule. Instruction fees were reduced from UGX 5,000,000 to UGX 292,800 (15% of claim value). Multiple items were struck out for not being provided for in the Regulations. VAT of UGX 1,368,000 was set aside for lack of proof of registration. Total bill reduced from UGX 9,100,000 to UGX 2,222,000.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; bill of costs reduced from UGX 9,100,000 to UGX 2,222,000

Facts

The respondent obtained a decree in the Magistrate's Court in case IBD-00-CV-CS-115-2010. The respondent's bill of costs was taxed by the taxing officer on 18 April 2011, who allowed UGX 9,100,000. The appellant appealed against this taxation, contending that the taxing officer awarded excessive fees for instructions, attendance, drawing documents, making copies, and transport, as well as VAT without proof. The appellant challenged that dates were not indicated for certain items and that the bill was not duly filed. The subject matter of the original suit was valued at UGX 1,952,000. Neither party filed written submissions despite being directed to do so.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer erred in allowing excessive instruction fees, attendance fees, drawing fees, and copying fees.
  2. Whether the taxing officer erred in awarding costs on items where dates were not indicated.
  3. Whether the taxing officer erred in awarding VAT without proof of registration.
  4. Whether the taxing officer applied wrong principles in taxing the bill of costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Total bill of costs reduced to UGX 2,222,000.
  • Bill as taxed by the taxing master on 18 April 2011 set aside.
  • Instruction fees reduced from UGX 5,000,000 to UGX 292,800.
  • Various items adjusted to conform to Sixth Schedule rates.
  • Items not provided for in Regulations struck out.
  • VAT award of UGX 1,368,000 set aside for lack of proof of registration.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Appellate Intervention — Wrong Principle Applied
A judge will not alter a fee allowed by a taxing officer merely because in the judge's opinion a higher or lower amount should have been allowed, save in exceptional circumstances. The judge should interfere only where it is shown that the taxing officer exercised or applied a wrong principle and arrived at an amount which is manifestly excessive or manifestly low, and only if satisfied that the error substantially affected the decision on quantum and that upholding the amount would cause injustice.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Taxing Officer's Duty — Finding Basic Fee
In taxing a bill of costs, the taxing master must first find the appropriate scale fee in the schedule (the basic fee) and then consider whether that basic fee should be increased or reduced, giving reasons for any adjustment.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Calculation According to Sixth Schedule
Where the subject matter is valued at less than UGX 2,000,000, instruction fees are calculated at 15% of the claim or value of the subject matter, in accordance with Item 1(1)(a) of the Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123-1982.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Items Not Provided For — Struck Out
Items in a bill of costs that are not provided for under the applicable Regulations must be struck out and disallowed, notwithstanding that they may represent actual work done or expenses incurred.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — VAT — Proof of Registration Required
Before an award of Value Added Tax is made in a bill of costs, counsel's law firm must present a VAT certificate as proof of VAT registration status. Where no VAT certificate is tendered into court, the VAT award must be set aside.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Advocates Act s.62(1)
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and Reference) Regulations S.I. 267-5 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules s.98
  • Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123-1982 r.37
  • Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123-1982 Sixth Schedule Item 1(1)(a)
  • Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123-1982 Sixth Schedule Item 10(1)
  • Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123-1982 Sixth Schedule Item 12(1)
  • Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123-1982 Sixth Schedule Item 12(2)(a)
  • Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123-1982 Sixth Schedule Item 12(2)(b)
  • Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123-1982 Sixth Schedule Item 10(3)
  • Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123-1982 Sixth Schedule Item 10(5)
  • Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I. 123-1982 Sixth Schedule Item 11(1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1999)
  • Bukenya Wasswa v Ssembatya (Taxation Appeal No. 7 of 2019)
  • Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1967] EA 492
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Mugenyi v Hoima District Administration (Taxation Appeal No. 35 of 2017)
  • Nalubaale v Kiwanuka and Others (Taxation Appeal No. 3 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Haba v Bishaka (Civil Appeal 33 of 2011) [2022] UGHC 126 (17 October 2022)
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.