Wakilii

Jobbing Field Properties Ltd v Lumonya Bushora & Co. Advocates (HCT-00-CC-CA 11 of 2008)

High Court · [2009] UGCOMMC 60 · 2009 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the Registrar's taxation of an advocate-client bill of costs
Decision
Instruction fees reduced from UGX 150,000,000 to UGX 60,260,980 with interest at 6% per annum until payment

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 High Court found the Registrar's award of UGX 150,000,000 in instruction fees excessive and reduced it to UGX 60,260,980, calculated by applying the Sixth Schedule formulae with a one-third increase and adding fees for handling a counterclaim and a special fee for complexity. The court held the Registrar erred by failing to provide sufficient reasoning and by improperly relying on confidential mediation proceedings in breach of Rule 22.

Outcome

Instruction fees reduced from UGX 150,000,000 to UGX 60,260,980 with interest at 6% per annum until payment

Facts

Lumonya Bushara & Co Advocates represented Jobbing Field Properties Ltd in High Court Civil Suit No. 220 of 2007 against Bugisu Cooperative Union Ltd, which was settled by consent judgment with each party bearing its own costs. The advocates filed an advocate-client bill of costs for professional services rendered. The Registrar, who had also served as mediator in the underlying case, taxed the instruction fees at UGX 150,000,000. The client appealed, contending the fee was excessive and should have been UGX 27,374,400 based on the Sixth Schedule formulae, that no certificate for a higher fee had been obtained, and that the Registrar improperly relied on confidential mediation proceedings. The underlying suit sought recovery of USD 1,652,690.40 (approximately UGX 2.8 billion) and involved a counterclaim worth UGX 1 billion.

Issues

  1. Whether the Registrar erred in awarding instruction fees of UGX 150,000,000 when the proper sum calculated under the Sixth Schedule should have been UGX 27,374,400.
  2. Whether the Registrar erred in taxing the bill based on complexity without a certificate from the judge specifying a higher fee.
  3. Whether the Registrar erred in applying his knowledge of mediation proceedings in the taxation proceedings contrary to Rule 22 of the Commercial Court Division (Mediation Pilot Project) Rules 2003.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part.
  • The instruction fee of UGX 150,000,000 awarded by the Registrar is set aside.
  • Instruction fee reduced to UGX 60,260,980 broken down as: UGX 37,194,314 (main claim with one-third increase), UGX 13,066,667 (counterclaim), and UGX 10,000,000 (special fee for complexity).
  • Interest awarded at 6% per annum from the date of the Registrar's award until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocates' Remuneration — Taxation of Advocate-Client Bills — Application of Sixth Schedule
When taxing an advocate-client bill under Regulation 57 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, the instruction fee must be calculated according to the Sixth Schedule formulae and increased by one-third as between advocate and client, with any special fees for complexity awarded separately and transparently rather than in a lump sum.
Advocates' Remuneration — Special Fees for Complexity — Exercise of Discretion
A taxing officer may award a special fee for complexity under Regulation 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations having regard to the nature and extent of interests involved, labour and responsibility entailed, and the number, complexity and importance of documents, but must provide sufficient reasons showing the thought process leading to the quantum awarded.
Advocates' Remuneration — Certificate for Higher Fees — Advocate-Client Taxation
The requirement in item 1(ix) of the Sixth Schedule for a certificate allowing a higher fee applies to party-party taxation where one party seeks to claim from the other; in advocate-client taxation where each party bears its own costs, an advocate may invoke Regulation 6 for a special fee without such a certificate.
Mediation — Confidentiality — Use of Mediation Knowledge in Subsequent Proceedings
Rule 22 of the Commercial Court Division (Mediation Pilot Project) Rules 2003 renders all information arising from mediation privileged and inadmissible in any current or subsequent proceedings; a Registrar who served as mediator errs in law by applying knowledge gained during mediation to taxation proceedings, and should ideally not act as taxing master in cases where he or she served as mediator.
Appeals from Taxation — Appellate Intervention — Principles
An appellate court reviewing a taxing officer's award should interfere only where there has been an error in principle, not on questions solely of quantum, as the taxing officer possesses greater experience; the court will intervene in exceptional cases where costs reach such a level as to deny the poor access to justice or where the successful litigant is not fairly reimbursed.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (4)

  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Another [1982] HCB 11
  • Alexander Okello v M/s Kayondo and Co. Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani and Nasmudin Habib Virani (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
  • Habre International Trading Co. Ltd v Francis Rutagarama Bantariza (Court of Appeal No. 7 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jobbing Field Properties Ltd v Lumonya Bushora & Co. Advocates (HCT-00-CC-CA 11 of 2008) [2009] UGCommC 60 (22 September 2009)
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.