Wakilii

Kabaale Kwagala Olivia v Beatrice Zirabamuzale Magola & Anor (Misc. Apeal No 34 Of 2010) (Misc. Apeal No 34 of 2010)

High Court · [2010] UGHC 126 · 2010 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation ruling in election petition
Decision
Taxation award reduced from UGX 8,101,000 to UGX 6,487,000

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

The High Court held that an appeal against taxation partially succeeds. Instruction fees of UGX 5,000,000 were justified but items 2-27 totalling UGX 1,104,000 were erroneously awarded and should have been collapsed under instruction fees. Travel time fees of UGX 600,000 were not provided for under the Rules and were taxed off. Costs for a second advocate totalling UGX 100,000 were disallowed in the absence of a trial judge's certificate. The Electoral Commission is entitled to recover costs as a body corporate notwithstanding funding from the Consolidated Fund. The taxation award was reduced from UGX 8,101,000 to UGX 6,487,000.

Outcome

Taxation award reduced from UGX 8,101,000 to UGX 6,487,000

Facts

The applicant and first respondent contested the 2006 general elections for District Woman Representative for Iganga District. The first respondent won and was declared by the Electoral Commission. The applicant brought an election petition which she lost. The second respondent (Electoral Commission) filed a bill of costs which was taxed by the Assistant Registrar on 21 August 2009 and allowed at UGX 8,101,000. The applicant challenged this award as excessive and unjustified. She complained that the Taxing Master did not exercise discretion judicially and allowed items that were not factual or believable. Specific complaints included instruction fees of UGX 5,000,000, travel expenses of UGX 200,000 allegedly for advocates using personal vehicles when this was not proved, and accommodation expenses without supporting receipts. The applicant also argued that the Electoral Commission was not entitled to costs given its funding from the Consolidated Fund under the Electoral Commission Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxation ruling awarding UGX 8,101,000 in costs to the respondents was excessive and unjustified.
  2. Whether the Electoral Commission is entitled to recover costs in election petition matters given the funding provisions under the Electoral Commission Act.
  3. Whether instruction fees of UGX 5,000,000 were reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
  4. Whether disbursements for transport and accommodation were properly allowed without production of receipts.
  5. Whether costs for two advocates could be allowed in the absence of a certificate from the trial judge.
  6. Whether the Taxing Master properly exercised his discretion in allowing various items in the bill of costs.

Orders

  • Appeal partially allowed.
  • The taxation award of UGX 8,101,000 is set aside and substituted with UGX 6,487,000.
  • Costs of the reference to be borne by the respondent, to be deducted from the amount awarded.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Scope and Computation
Instruction fees should cover the advocate's work including taking instructions and other work necessary for presenting the case for trial or appeal. Items that form part of the preparation and presentation of the case should be collapsed under the instruction fee and not charged separately.
Taxation of Costs — Assessment of Instruction Fees — Simpson Motor Sales Approach
The correct approach in assessing an instruction fee is to envisage a hypothetical counsel capable of conducting the particular case effectively but unable or unwilling to insist on a particularly high fee, and then estimate what fee this hypothetical character would be content to take. An instruction fee is manifestly excessive if it is out of proportion with the value and importance of the suit and the work involved. Each case must be decided on its own merits considering factors such as complexity, length, preparation required, and research involved.
Taxation of Costs — Disbursements — Production of Receipts
The requirement for production of receipts or vouchers for disbursements at taxation is not mandatory but is left to the discretion of the Taxing Officer. Where the Taxing Officer exercises this discretion and applies no wrong taxing principle, an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion.
Taxation of Costs — Multiple Advocates — Requirement for Certificate
Costs for more than one advocate may be allowed only where the trial judge has certified under his or her hand that more than one advocate was reasonable and proper having regard to the nature, importance or difficulty of the case. In the absence of such a certificate, costs for only one advocate may be awarded.
Taxation of Costs — Travelling Time — Not Allowable for Court Attendance
No fees are to be awarded to an advocate for time spent travelling to court for hearings or other attendances provided for in the Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Rules. Travel time fees are only allowable for matters or business not otherwise provided for by the rules.
Electoral Commission — Entitlement to Costs — Body Corporate Status
The Electoral Commission as a body corporate empowered to sue and be sued is entitled to recover costs in litigation notwithstanding that its administrative expenses including salaries, allowances and pensions are charged on the Consolidated Fund. Costs of litigation are not administrative expenses within the meaning of Article 66(3) of the Constitution. The funds provided under section 9(2) of the Electoral Commission Act are for day-to-day expenses and do not preclude the Commission from recovering costs as a remedy in litigation.
Appeals from Taxation — Principles of Interference
A court will only interfere with an award of costs by a Taxing Officer if such costs are so low or so high that they amount to an injustice to one of the parties. The court will not interfere where the Taxing Officer has exercised discretion judicially and on correct principles. Where a trial court awards costs, a Taxing Officer does not have jurisdiction to decline to tax and award those costs based on submissions of counsel at taxation.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (11)

  • Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & Others [1972] EA 162
  • Akisoferi Ogola v Akika Othieno & Another (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1999)
  • Francis Bantariza v Habre International [2001-2005] 3 HCB 18
  • Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
  • Ishanga Ndyanabo Longino v Bitahwa Nyine (Civil Reference No. 16 of 2003)
  • Simpson Motor Sales (London) Ltd. v. Hendon Corporation (1964) 3 All E.R. 833
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Alexander Okello v M/s Kayondo & Company Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Devram Nanji Dattani v. Haridas Kalidas Dawda (1949), 16 E.A.C.A. 35
  • Donald Campbell v. Pollack, [1927] A.C. 732
  • Kiska Ltd v De Angelis [1969] 1 EA 6

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabaale Kwagala Olivia Vs Beatrice Zirabamuzale Magola & Anor (Misc. Apeal No 34 Of 2010) (Misc. Apeal No 34 of 2010) [2010] UGHC 126 (10 November 2010)
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.