Wakilii

Insurance Company v Kasirye and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 358 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGHC 255 · 2013 Appeal Allowed — Matter Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the Taxing Master's ruling in taxation of an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs
Decision
Matter remitted to the Taxing Master for fresh taxation in accordance with the judgment

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 Master erred in principle by failing to apply the specific provisions of the Sixth Schedule when taxing the Advocate/Client Bill of Costs. Instruction fees should cover work necessary for presenting the case. Where the value of the subject matter can be ascertained, the taxing officer has no discretionary power in calculating instruction fees. The Taxing Master erred by arbitrarily awarding fees for meetings without particularisation and by separately awarding fees for legal research and preparation of scheduling notes, which are covered by instruction fees and drawing of necessary court papers. Where multiple counsels handle the same matter without certification for more than one counsel, instruction fees must be apportioned. The taxation award was set aside and the matter referred back to the Taxing Master for fresh taxation.

Outcome

Matter remitted to the Taxing Master for fresh taxation in accordance with the judgment

Facts

The Appellant instructed the Respondent advocates to recover US$34,742 from DAMCO Logistics. After mediation failed, the Appellant discharged the Respondents and retained new counsel (Yiga Advocates). The suit had not been heard and was scheduled for a scheduling conference. The Respondents filed an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs claiming Uganda shillings 37,637,347/=. The Taxing Master allowed Uganda shillings 21,255,468/=. The Appellant appealed against this award, arguing that the Taxing Master did not exercise her discretion judicially, that the bill was not taxed according to law, and that certain items were neither factual nor believable. The Respondents argued they had invested substantial work in the matter and were entitled to the fees awarded.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Master exercised her discretion judicially in awarding Uganda shillings 21,255,468/= to the Respondents.
  2. Whether the Bill of Costs was taxed in accordance with the provisions of law under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.
  3. Whether instruction fees should cover all work necessary for presenting a case, including meetings, legal research, and preparation of scheduling notes.
  4. Whether advocates who do not pursue a suit to its conclusion are entitled to full instruction fees.
  5. Whether the Taxing Master properly applied the Sixth Schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations in allowing specific items in the Bill of Costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The taxation award is set aside.
  • The Bill of Costs is referred back to the Taxing Master for taxation afresh in accordance with the specific rules and principles contained in the judgment.
  • Costs of the appeal to be borne by the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Advocate/Client Bills — Instruction Fees
Instruction fees should cover the advocate's work, including taking instructions as well as other work necessary for presenting the case for trial or appeal. Where the value of the subject matter of a suit can be ascertained from the claim or judgment, the taxing officer has no discretionary powers in the calculation of instruction fees and must apply the scale prescribed in item 1(a)(iv) of the Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.
Taxation of Costs — Meetings and Attendances — Particularisation Required
Where an advocate claims fees for numerous meetings without particularising the dates, duration, or purpose of those meetings, the taxing officer errs in law by making an arbitrary award based on guesswork. Item 5(P) of the Sixth Schedule, which provides for 'all other necessary attendances' at Uganda shillings 12,000 per 15 minutes, requires evidence of the time actually spent. The term 'necessary attendances' must be construed ejusdem generis to mean attending before courts, arbitrators, or similar proceedings, not general client meetings covered by instruction fees.
Taxation of Costs — Legal Research and Preparation of Scheduling Notes
It is an error in principle to separately award fees for legal research and preparation of scheduling notes in addition to instruction fees. Legal research constitutes necessary work for presenting a case and is covered by instruction fees. The preparation of scheduling notes constitutes drawing of necessary court papers and is specifically catered for under item 2(e) of the Sixth Schedule at Uganda shillings 8,000 per folio but not less than Uganda shillings 25,000.
Taxation of Costs — Multiple Counsels — Apportionment of Instruction Fees
Where several counsels handle the same matter and costs for more than one counsel have not been certified by the presiding judge or magistrate, instruction fees must be apportioned between the counsels in proportion to the amount of work done. A client cannot be charged twice for instruction fees merely because multiple counsels were retained. Item 1(a)(xi) of the Sixth Schedule provides that where costs for more than one advocate are certified by the presiding judge, instruction fees shall be increased by one half to cover the second advocate; otherwise joint counsels must share the same instruction fees.
Taxation of Costs — One-Third Rule — Uniform Application
Item 1(b) of the Sixth Schedule provides that as between advocate and client, the instruction fee to be allowed on taxation shall be the actual instruction fee allowed as between party and party increased by one third. This formula applies uniformly to all advocate/client bills of costs where the advocate and client cannot agree on fees, regardless of whether the case resulted in a party-to-party taxation. The taxing officer is obliged to use this formula and has no discretion to reduce it once the basic fee has been properly established under the Sixth Schedule.
Judicial Review of Taxation — Grounds for Appellate Interference
An appellate court should not interfere with the award of a taxing officer unless there is an error in principle. Courts should not interfere on questions solely of quantum because the taxing officer is more experienced than the judge on matters of taxation. However, where the taxing officer has failed to apply the specific provisions of the Sixth Schedule or has made arbitrary awards without evidentiary foundation, the appellate court is entitled to set aside the taxation award.
Statutory Interpretation — Application of Specific Rules over General Principles
Each statutory provision must be interpreted on its own terms and in context. Where specific rules exist for taxation of costs, those rules must be applied to the particular item, cause, or matter. General principles of taxation should only be applied where there is no specific rule dealing with the particular item or where the specific rule is unclear or ambiguous. The application of common law, doctrines of equity, or established customs is subject to written law under section 14(2)(b) of the Judicature Act.

Legislation cited (19)

  • Advocates Act s.62(1)
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Rules r.3
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Rules r.4
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Rules r.9
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations r.2
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations r.57
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 1(a)(iv)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 1(a)(v)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 1(a)(vi)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 1(a)(xi)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 1(b)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 2(e)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 5(L)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 5(P)
  • Judicature Act s.14
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.9(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.109(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.109(3)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.105(2)

Cases cited (18)

  • Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electric (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994) [1990-1991] 1 EA 306
  • Ishanga Ndyanabo Longino v Bahatahwa Mine (Civil Appeal Reference No. 16 of 2003)
  • Kabale Kwagala v Beatrice Tiraba Muzale Magola and another (Miscellaneous Application No. 34 of 2010)
  • Electoral Commission and Kirunda Kivejinja v Abdu Katuntu (Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 001 of 2009 and 002 of 2010)
  • C.C. Chandram v Kengrot Industries Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2002)
  • A Kassam and 2 Others versus Habre International
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd [1972] EA 162
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 11
  • Mayers v Hamilton [1975] 1 EA 13
  • Attorney-General v Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1954] A.C. 436
  • Attorney-General v HRH Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1957] 1 All ER 49
  • Lall v Jeypee Investments Ltd [1972] 1 EA 512
  • Alexander Okello v Kayondo and Company Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Ellingsen v Det Skandinaviske Compagni [1919] 2 K.B. 567
  • Hoshjum v Zanub [1957] EA 255
  • Katuntu v Karumuna Melvin Consulting Engineers (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 24 of 1994)
  • Nalumunsi v Lule (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 12 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Insurance Company v Kasirye and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 358 of 2013) [2013] UGHC 255 (1 September 2013)
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.