Wakilii

His Royal Highness the Kabaka of Buganda v Sekabojja and CO. Advocates (Taxation Appeal No. 4 of 2014)

High Court · [2014] UGCOMMC 73 · 2014 Appeal Allowed (First Appeal); Appeal Dismissed (Second Appeal); Matter Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated taxation appeals from Registrar's ruling on advocate-client bills of costs
Decision
Awards set aside and matter remitted to Taxing Officer for re-taxation in accordance with taxation regulations

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 the Taxing Officer erred by failing to apply the mandatory arithmetic formula prescribed in the 6th Schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations when taxing instruction fees. The regulations require the taxing officer to calculate fees as a percentage of the subject matter value on a sliding scale, without discretion where the value is ascertainable. Further held that where a matter is alleged to be of exceptional complexity, the advocate must first obtain a certificate from the presiding judge specifying the increase fraction before claiming enhanced fees. The awards were set aside and the matter remitted for re-taxation in accordance with the regulations.

Outcome

Awards set aside and matter remitted to Taxing Officer for re-taxation in accordance with taxation regulations

Facts

The Kabaka of Buganda instructed Sekabojja and Co. Advocates to file suit against the Attorney General seeking ownership declarations over land valued at Shs. 18,794,600,000/-. The suit arose under the Traditional Rulers (Restitution of Properties and Assets) Act, 1993, which vested previously expropriated properties in traditional rulers. The land was occupied by Uganda Prisons Service. The parties resolved the matter by consent judgment on 19 May 2011, with the Attorney General agreeing to pay Shs. 11,523,546,000/-. The advocate firm sought to tax two bills totalling over Shs. 18 billion. The Registrar awarded Shs. 941,956,000/- on the first bill and Shs. 28,300,000/- on the second. Both parties appealed: the Kabaka contending the awards were too high, the advocates claiming they were too low. The appeals were consolidated.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer applied the correct principles of law in taxation of Miscellaneous Application 028/2013.
  2. Whether Sekabojja & Co. Advocates are entitled to the amounts awarded by the Taxing Officer on 18th February 2014.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • First Appeal allowed.
  • Second Appeal dismissed.
  • Awards of Shs. 941,956,000/- (first bill) and Shs. 28,300,000/- (second bill) set aside.
  • Bills of costs remitted back to the Taxing Officer for re-taxation in accordance with the taxation rules.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Advocate-Client Bills — Mandatory Application of Statutory Formula
Where the value of the subject matter in advocate-client costs taxation can be determined from the amount claimed or the judgment, the taxing officer must apply the arithmetic formula prescribed in the 6th Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations and has no discretion to depart from the prescribed rates.
Taxation of Costs — Subject Matter Valuation — Basis for Calculation
In taxation of advocate-client costs following a consent judgment, the value of the subject matter for purposes of calculating instruction fees is the value stated in the plaint, not the settlement figure ultimately agreed between the parties.
Taxation of Costs — Complex Matters — Certificate of Complexity Requirement
Where an advocate seeks to claim a higher fee on the ground that a matter is of exceptional importance or unusual complexity, the advocate must first apply to the presiding judge for a certificate allowing the higher fee, and the judge must specify the fraction or percentage by which the instruction fee should be increased. An advocate may not claim the increase without obtaining the certificate.
Taxation Appeals — Grounds for Interference — Error in Principle
An appellate court will interfere with a taxing officer's award where there has been an error in principle or where there are exceptional circumstances, but will not interfere in questions solely of quantum.
Advocates' Remuneration Regulations — Mandatory Nature — Purpose
The Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations are mandatory and must be followed to strike the right balance between allowing advocates adequate remuneration for their work and protecting the public from excessive fees by reducing costs to a reasonable level.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • Lion Assurance C. Ltd v Kasekende Kyeyune & Lutaaya Advocates (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 358 of 2013)
  • Makumbi & Another v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd [1990-1994] EA 306
  • Western Highlands Creameries Ltd & Another v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Taxation Appeal No. 10 of 2013)
  • Alexander Joe Okello v Kayondo & Co. Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Jobbing Field Properties Ltd v Lumonya Bushara & Co. Advocates (High Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2008)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufactures (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Nicholas Roussos Vs Gulam Hussein Habib Virani & Another
  • Steel Petroleum v Uganda Sugar Factory [1970] EA 141

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

His Royal Highness the Kabaka of Buganda v Sekabojja and CO. Advocates (Taxation Appeal No. 4 of 2014) [2014] UGCommC 73 (11 June 2014)
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.