Wakilii

Ishanga v Bitahwa (Civil Reference 16 of 2003)

Court of Appeal · [2003] UGCA 14 · 2003 Reference Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single Justice of Appeal against the decision of the Taxing Master on taxation of instruction fees in an election petition appeal
Decision
Reference partly allowed; instruction fee increased from UGX 6,000,000 to UGX 11,000,000

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 2 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations fading — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

On a reference against the Taxing Master's award of UGX 6,000,000 instruction fees in an election petition appeal, the single Justice held that the Taxing Master misdirected himself by assessing the merits of the cross appeal, a matter outside his jurisdiction. The dismissal of the appeal on a technical objection finally disposed of the entire suit, so all legitimate preparation work for both the appeal and the cross appeal — including research and authorities not ultimately used in court — attracted costs. Finding the award manifestly low and based on a wrong principle, the court increased the instruction fees to UGX 11,000,000, having regard to the national importance of the election petition.

Outcome

Reference partly allowed; instruction fee increased from UGX 6,000,000 to UGX 11,000,000

Facts

The appellant and the respondent contested the LC5 Chairmanship election for Bushenyi District in 2002, with the appellant declared the winner. The respondent filed an election petition in the High Court at Mbarara, which was dismissed as time barred with costs to the appellant. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal without joining the Electoral Commission, which had been a co-respondent below; the appellant filed a cross appeal. At the hearing, the appellant raised an oral objection that the Electoral Commission ought to have been a party; the objection was upheld and the appeal dismissed. The appellant filed a bill of costs claiming UGX 30,000,000 as instruction fees. The Taxing Master reduced this to UGX 6,000,000, declining to allow costs relating to the cross appeal, which he considered unsustainable. The appellant referred the taxation to a single Justice of Appeal, contending the award was manifestly low and based on wrong principles.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Master misdirected himself by determining the merits of the cross appeal when assessing instruction fees.
  2. Whether preparation work for both the appeal and cross appeal that was not ultimately used in court attracts costs.
  3. Whether the Taxing Master applied the correct principles in arriving at the quantum of instruction fees.
  4. Whether the award of instruction fees was so low as to amount to a miscarriage of justice warranting interference.

Orders

  • The reference succeeds in part (grounds 1-4 upheld; grounds 5-8 fail).
  • The instruction fee awarded by the Taxing Master is increased to shs. 11,000,000 (eleven million only) to the appellant.
  • Costs of taxation before the Taxing Master and before this court awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Jurisdiction of Taxing Master — No Power to Decide Merits of Appeal
A Taxing Master's jurisdiction is limited to assessing whether counsel did legitimate work in preparation of an appeal or cross appeal to attract fees; he has no power to consider or pronounce upon the merits or demerits of the appeal or cross appeal.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Work Prepared but Not Used in Court
All work necessarily and properly done in connection with an appeal, including research, perusals and consulting authorities, attracts costs even where such work was not ultimately used in court, and even where the appeal was dismissed on a technicality.
Taxation of Costs — Effect of Dismissal of Appeal on Cross Appeal
Where an appeal is dismissed on a technical objection that disposes of the entire suit, the cross appeal forming part of that appeal is also disposed of and is not left pending; consequently preparation work for the cross appeal attracts costs.
Taxation of Costs — Appellate Review — Interference with Taxing Master's Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with a Taxing Master's assessment of a reasonable fee unless it is shown that he applied a wrong principle, which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low, and that the error substantially affected the quantum.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Schedule III paragraph 9
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Schedule III paragraph 9(2)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Schedule III paragraph 9(3)

Cases cited (7)

  • Patrick B Makumbi and Another v Sole Electricks (Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 29 of 1999)
  • Akisoferi Michael Ogola v Akika Othieno Emmanuel and Another (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1999)
  • Abdulrcheman Haji Suleman and Others vs. Bhudulali Khrctshi Hansraj and Another [1964] EA 47
  • Premchand Brichand v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd [1972] EA 162
  • Nalumansi v Sulaimani Lule (Civil Application No. 12 of 1992)
  • Connie Kabanda v Kananura Melvin Consulting Engineers (Civil Application No. 24 of 1993)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ishanga v Bitahwa (Civil Reference 16 of 2003) [2003] UGCA 14 (11 April 2003)
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.