Wakilii

Hon. Mwine Mpaka v MTN (U) Ltd and Others (Taxation Appeal No. 18 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 71 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of taxing officer in taxation proceedings arising from dismissal of temporary injunction application with costs
Decision
Taxation appeal dismissed; taxing officer's award of Shs 6,374,300/= upheld as reasonable and fair

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 court dismissed the taxation appeal, holding that the taxing officer properly exercised discretion in awarding costs of Shs 6,374,300/= for a dismissed temporary injunction application. The award was not manifestly excessive despite the subsequent withdrawal of the main suit without costs, as the earlier dismissal of the injunction application with costs remained taxable. A judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment unless a wrong principle was applied resulting in a manifestly excessive or low award causing injustice.

Outcome

Taxation appeal dismissed; taxing officer's award of Shs 6,374,300/= upheld as reasonable and fair

Facts

The appellant sued the respondents in Civil Suit No. 110 of 2018 and filed an application for temporary injunction (Miscellaneous Application 162 of 2018). The court heard and dismissed the temporary injunction application with costs to the respondents. Subsequently, the appellant withdrew the main suit with no order as to costs, which the court endorsed. The 1st respondent filed a bill of costs in respect of the dismissed injunction application. The taxing officer taxed and allowed the bill at Shs 6,374,300/=. The appellant appealed, contending that no costs were ordered after the withdrawal and that the award was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued the taxing officer abdicated her duty and erred in awarding costs not ordered in the main suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer erred in law and fact in awarding costs of Shs 6,374,300/= which were not ordered in Civil Suit No. 110 of 2018.
  2. Whether the taxing officer erred in law and fact in awarding costs that were manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
  3. Whether the taxing officer abdicated her public duty to tax the bill of costs judicially in accordance with the law.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Judicial Review of Taxing Officer's Decision — Standard of Interference
Save in exceptional cases, a judge does not interfere with the assessment of what the taxing officer considers a reasonable fee, as questions of quantum of costs are matters which the taxing officer is particularly fitted to deal with and in which the taxing officer has more experience than the judge.
Taxation of Costs — Exceptional Cases for Judicial Interference — Wrong Principle
An exceptional case warranting judicial interference with a taxing officer's decision is where it is shown expressly or by inference that in assessing the quantum of the fee allowed, the taxing officer exercised or applied a wrong principle, which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low.
Taxation of Costs — Threshold for Judicial Interference — Substantial Effect and Injustice
Even if it is shown that the taxing officer erred on principle, the judge should interfere only on being satisfied that the error substantially affected the decision on quantum and that upholding the amount allowed would cause injustice to one of the parties.
Taxation of Costs — Assessment of Quantum — Case-Specific Factors
There is no mathematical or magic formula to be used by a taxing master to arrive at a precise figure for costs; each case must be decided on its own merits and circumstances, with lengthy or complicated cases involving lengthy preparation and research attracting higher fees, and the amount of the subject matter involved having a bearing in a variable degree.
Costs — Withdrawal of Suit Without Costs — Effect on Earlier Costs Order
Where a temporary injunction application is dismissed with costs and the main suit is subsequently withdrawn without costs, the earlier costs order in respect of the dismissed injunction application remains taxable and enforceable notwithstanding the withdrawal of the main suit.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Electoral Commission and Another v Hon 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.

Hon. Mwine Mpaka v MTN (U) Ltd and Others (Taxation Appeal No. 18 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 71 (31 March 2023)
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.