Wakilii

James Matsiko v Davis Nelyonrugabe (civil Application no. 48 2001)

Court of Appeal · [2003] UGCA 36 · 2003 Bill of Costs Taxed and Reduced AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of a bill of costs arising from withdrawal of an application for leave to appeal
Decision
Bill of costs taxed and allowed at Shs.2,038,000/-

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

On taxation of the respondent's bill of costs arising from the applicant's withdrawal of an application for leave to appeal, the Assistant Registrar held that the claimed instruction fee of Shs.32,508,200/- was manifestly excessive. Because the application was not complex and its subject matter could not have carried the stated value of the Kololo property, but respondent's counsel had prepared for the hearing and was entitled to more than nominal fees, an instruction fee of Shs.2,000,000/- was assessed as reasonable. Items charging for copies of documents were disallowed under the Court's rules, while disbursements were allowed. The bill was taxed and allowed at Shs.2,038,000/-.

Outcome

Bill of costs taxed and allowed at Shs.2,038,000/-

Facts

The respondent, through his advocates, filed a bill of costs totalling Shs.5,717,000/-, of which Shs.32,508,200/- was claimed as an instruction fee. The bill arose from the withdrawal of an application in which the applicant, Uganda Electricity Board, had sought leave of the Court of Appeal to appeal from a ruling of the High Court after the High Court had refused leave. The applicant was condemned in costs because it had not given prior notice of its intention to withdraw the application. Respondent's counsel left taxation to the Court's discretion, while counsel for the applicant urged an instruction fee of Shs.300,000/-. The Registrar found no affidavit in reply or list of authorities on record from the respondent but accepted that respondent's counsel had undertaken preparation for the hearing.

Issues

  1. What instruction fee is reasonable on taxation where the underlying application was withdrawn before hearing on the merits.

Orders

  • Instruction fee assessed at Shs.2,000,000/-.
  • Items 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17 and 19 disallowed.
  • All disbursements allowed.
  • Respondent's bill of costs taxed and allowed at Shs.2,038,000/-.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Assessment of Instruction Fees on Withdrawn Application
On taxation, an instruction fee claimed for an application that was withdrawn before hearing must reflect the complexity and true value of the matter; where counsel has undertaken preparation, more than nominal fees are payable, but a manifestly excessive claim will be reduced to a reasonable sum.
Costs — Taxation — Scope of Instruction Fee and Disallowed Items
An instruction fee covers attendances before court, perusals and other preparatory work; items charging for copies of documents are not allowable under the rules of the Court of Appeal.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

James Matsiko v Davis Nelyonrugabe (civil Application no. 48 2001) [2003] UGCA 36 (4 June 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.