Wakilii

Inspector General of Government v Magezi (Taxation Cause 1 of 2015)

East African Court of Justice · [2016] EACJ 36 · 2016 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of bill of costs arising from Reference No. 5 of 2013 and Consolidated Application Nos. 8 and 9 of 2012
Decision
Bill of costs taxed at USD 5,000; instruction fees claimed by Attorney General disallowed

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 Taxing Officer held that the Attorney General, as a public officer performing constitutional duties and paid a salary from public funds, is not entitled to instruction fees when representing government entities. Instruction fees were disallowed, and only agreed disbursements of USD 5,000 were taxed and allowed.

Outcome

Bill of costs taxed at USD 5,000; instruction fees claimed by Attorney General disallowed

Facts

The Inspector General of Government and others were wrongly impleaded as Interested Parties in Reference No. 5 of 2013. After filing responses, the applicant in the Reference withdrew the claims against them without agreement on costs. Quality Chemicals Industries Ltd and National Medical Stores filed consolidated applications seeking costs, in which the IGG participated by leave. The Court ruled on 19 June 2014 that the applicants and IGG were entitled to costs. The IGG, represented by the Attorney General, filed a bill of costs totalling USD 204,532.33, including instruction fees of USD 186,860.40 based on a subject matter valued at USD 17,826,038.94. The parties agreed on disbursements of USD 5,000. The respondent objected to instruction fees, arguing that the Attorney General, as a public officer paid a salary, cannot charge instruction fees for performing constitutional duties.

Issues

  1. Whether the Attorney General of Uganda is entitled to instruction fees when representing a public body in court proceedings.
  2. What costs are properly taxable under the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure when the Attorney General represents a public officer.

Orders

  • Instruction fees under item 1 taxed off entirely.
  • Items 2 to 20 and 23 taxed off on ground that they flow from instruction fees.
  • Bill taxed in the total sum of United States Dollars Five Thousand (USD 5,000) only, being the amount agreed between the parties to cover disbursements.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Attorney General as Public Officer
The Attorney General, as a public officer performing constitutional duties and paid a salary from the consolidated fund, is not entitled to instruction fees when representing government entities in litigation, as such representation constitutes the general duties for which the Attorney General is employed and remunerated.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Evidence of Payment Required
Where a party claims instruction fees in a bill of costs, the party must demonstrate that such fees were actually paid or are payable; a public officer performing statutory duties cannot claim instruction fees where no such fees were paid or demanded from the represented party.
Taxation of Costs — Dependent Items — Items Flowing from Instruction Fees
Where instruction fees are disallowed on taxation, all items that flow from or are dependent upon instruction fees (such as perusals, drawings, and service) must also be disallowed.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Electoral Commission of Uganda v Sitenda Sebalu (Taxation Cause No. 2 of 2013)
  • Clerk of the National Assembly v Professor Anyang Nyongo (Taxation Cause No. 3 of 2010)
  • Attorney General of Kenya v Professor Peter Anyang Nyongo (Taxation Reference No. 5 of 2010)
  • Zuberi v Returning Officer and Another [1970] EA 33
  • Electoral Commission of Uganda v Attorney General of Uganda (Consolidated Taxation Cause Nos. 2 & 3 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Inspector General of Government v Magezi (Taxation Cause 1 of 2015) [2016] EACJ 36 (26 May 2016)
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.