Wakilii

Isamat v Epetait (Misc. Applic. No. 43 of 2015)

High Court · [2015] UGHCCD 71 · 2015 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal by summons in chambers against a taxation ruling arising from an election petition
Decision
Taxing officer's ruling varied; total bill of costs reduced from over 140,000,000 shillings to 64,660,000 shillings.

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 in awarding 70 million shillings per counsel as instruction fees in an election petition case, which was manifestly excessive and inconsistent with awards in comparable cases. Instruction fees reduced to 30 million shillings, increased by one-half for second counsel to 45 million shillings total. The taxing officer wrongly doubled the instruction fee instead of increasing by one-half as prescribed by the Sixth Schedule rule 1(a)(xi). Fees for perusals, drawings, and disbursements reduced as unreasonable. Court of Appeal had granted certificate for two counsel covering both appellate and trial courts, rendering objection to taxation on that basis meritless. Appeal allowed, total costs reduced from over 140 million shillings to 64,660,000 shillings.

Outcome

Taxing officer's ruling varied; total bill of costs reduced from over 140,000,000 shillings to 64,660,000 shillings.

Facts

The respondent successfully defended an election petition challenging his election as Member of Parliament. The taxing officer assessed costs at over 140 million shillings including 70 million shillings instruction fees per counsel. The appellant appealed the taxation ruling under section 62(1) of the Advocates Act. The taxing officer had awarded the instruction fees after considering that the case involved detailed arguments on electoral law, counsel had to move throughout the constituency collecting evidence, and the petition was of importance as it challenged election of an MP. The respondent's counsel had to study and analyse 23 affidavits from the Electoral Commission and 13 affidavits attached to the petition, analyse results tally sheets and declaration forms, interview witnesses, and prepare for two days of oral submissions. The Court of Appeal had granted a certificate for two counsel covering both appellate and trial courts.

Issues

  1. Whether the instruction fees awarded by the taxing officer were manifestly excessive.
  2. Whether the fees awarded for items 2-8 and 10-24 of the bill of costs were high and manifestly excessive.
  3. Whether the disbursements awarded in items 25-47 of the bill of costs were high and excessive.
  4. Whether the trial court awarded a certificate for two counsel making the taxing officer's award for two counsel lawful.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Instruction fees for two counsel allowed at 45,000,000 shillings.
  • Fees for perusals, drawings and making copies allowed at 1,505,000 shillings.
  • Fees for court attendances allowed at 2,200,000 shillings.
  • Disbursements allowed at 15,800,000 shillings.
  • Drawing bill of costs and making copies allowed at 165,000 shillings.
  • Total sum allowed is 64,660,000 shillings.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Instruction Fees — Assessment Principles
Where the value of the subject matter cannot be determined from the pleadings or judgment, instruction fees shall take into account the amount of work done by the advocate, the complexity of the case, and where relevant the subject matter and prevailing economic conditions, but must be consistent with awards in comparable cases and not so high as to limit access to courts to only the wealthy.
Costs — Taxation — Certificate for Two Counsel — Effect on Fees
Where a court has certified two counsel, the instruction fee and other charges shall be increased by one-half to cover costs of second counsel under rule 1(a)(xi) of the Sixth Schedule, not doubled.
Costs — Taxation — Appeal from Taxing Officer — Standard of Interference
A court will only interfere with the award of a taxing officer where the error in principle substantially affected the decision on quantum such that upholding the amount allowed would cause an injustice to one of the parties, or where the award is so high or so low as to amount to an injustice.
Costs — Disbursements — Duty to Minimise Costs
Where counsel claim disbursements without providing receipts for accommodation or fuel, and the amounts claimed appear exaggerated, counsel have a duty to keep costs to a minimum and not to spend extravagantly, and the court may reduce unreasonable disbursements in taxation appeals.
Election Petitions — Costs — Instruction Fees
In election petition cases, instruction fees must be assessed with reference to awards in comparable election petition cases to ensure consistency, as election petitions are a legitimate avenue for resolving electoral grievances and financial implications to the Electoral Commission or taxpayer are not relevant factors in assessing costs.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Advocates Act s.62(1)
  • Advocates Regulation SI 267-5 regulation 3(1)
  • Sixth Schedule rule 1(a)(v)
  • Sixth Schedule rule 1(a)(xi)
  • Sixth Schedule rule 6
  • Sixth Schedule rule 2

Cases cited (7)

  • Semwogerere v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 5 of 2001)
  • Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services of East Africa [1972] EA 162
  • J'Okello v Kayondo & Co. Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Electoral Commission v Katuntu (Misc. Appeals No. 1 & 2 of 2009/2010)
  • Nabukenya v Nalwanga Balwana (Court of Appeal Taxation Reference No. 7 of 2014)
  • Roussos v Virani (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
  • Makumbi v Sole Electrics (U) (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Isamat v Epetait (Misc. Applic. No. 43 of 2015) [2015] UGHCCD 71 (24 August 2015)
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.