Wakilii

Inspector General of Government v Magezi (Taxation Cause No.1 of 2015)

East African Court of Justice · [2016] EACJ 134 · 2016 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of bill of costs following successful application for costs after wrongful impleading as interested party
Decision
Bill of costs reduced from USD 204,532.33 to USD 5,000. Only disbursements allowed; instruction fees and related charges 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 entirely. Only disbursements agreed between the parties at USD 5,000 were allowed. The ruling followed Zuberi v Returning Officer [1970] EA 33, which established that state attorneys performing general duties cannot claim instruction fees as they are salaried public officers.

Outcome

Bill of costs reduced from USD 204,532.33 to USD 5,000. Only disbursements allowed; instruction fees and related charges disallowed.

Facts

The Inspector General of Government was wrongly impleaded as an interested party in Reference No. 5 of 2013. After filing a response through the Attorney General, the applicant in the reference withdrew the matter against the IGG and other wrongly impleaded parties. Two other wrongly impleaded parties filed consolidated applications seeking costs. The Court ruled on 19 June 2014 that the applicants and the IGG were entitled to costs. The IGG, represented by the Attorney General, filed a bill of costs for 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 respondent objected to instruction fees being awarded to the Attorney General as a public officer.

Issues

  1. Whether the Attorney General of Uganda is entitled to instruction fees when representing a public body in litigation.
  2. Whether costs awarded by the court to a party represented by the Attorney General include instruction fees.
  3. What costs are reasonably incurred and awardable to the Attorney General under the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure.

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.
  • Disbursements under items 21, 22, 24 and 26 to 31 allowed at USD 5,000.
  • Bill taxed in the total sum of USD 5,000 only.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Instruction Fees — Attorney General as Public Officer
The Attorney General and state attorneys in his office, being public officers performing constitutional duties and earning salaries from public funds, are not entitled to instruction fees when representing government entities in litigation.
Costs — Taxation — Scope of Costs Award
An award of costs by the court does not include instruction fees where the successful party is represented by the Attorney General, as the Attorney General performs general duties for which he is salaried and does not incur or charge instruction fees.
Costs — Taxation — Items Flowing from Instruction Fees
Where instruction fees are disallowed, items such as perusals, drawings, and service that flow from instruction fees must also be disallowed under the taxation rules.

Legislation cited (10)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 111(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 112(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 113(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 113(3)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Third Schedule Rule 11(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Third Schedule Rule 11(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Third Schedule Rule 9(3)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 7(1)(f)
  • Government Proceedings Act Cap 77 s.15
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Chapter 7 Article 119(c)

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 No.1 of 2015) [2016] EACJ 134 (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.