Wakilii

Kabugo v Uganda NationaL Roads Authority (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 43 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 154 · 2021 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation ruling of Deputy Registrar in Taxation Application No. 42 of 2020, arising from Civil Suit No. 598 of 2012
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; taxation ruling of Deputy Registrar upheld

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 dismissed the appeal from the Deputy Registrar's taxation ruling. The court held that the Taxing Officer correctly applied the 6th Schedule formula to calculate instruction fees based on the consent judgment value and properly required a certificate of complexity for any higher fee claim. The Taxing Officer also correctly exercised discretion in awarding disbursements where no receipts or vouchers were produced. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the Taxing Officer applied wrong principles or that the awards were manifestly excessive or deficient.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; taxation ruling of Deputy Registrar upheld

Facts

The parties entered a consent judgment on 21 February 2020 in Civil Suit No. 598 of 2012, which concerned trespass and vacant possession of land. The appellant filed a bill of costs totalling UGX 37,876,219. Most items were agreed during the taxation conference except items 5 (instruction fees) and 159 (disbursements for surveyors, geologists and valuers). The appellant claimed instruction fees of UGX 27,560,000 and disbursements of an unspecified amount. The Deputy Registrar taxed instruction fees at UGX 13,857,219 based on the 6th Schedule formula applied to the consent judgment value of UGX 132,860,939, and awarded UGX 5,000,000 for disbursements. The appellant appealed, arguing the awards were manifestly low and that the Taxing Officer failed to consider the complexity of the matter, the time taken (9 years), and that damages had been waived in expectation of enhanced costs. The appellant produced no certificate of complexity and no receipts for disbursements.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer applied the correct principles of law in taxation of Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2020.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer correctly assessed instruction fees under item No. 5 of the bill of costs.
  3. Whether the Taxing Officer correctly assessed disbursements towards instructing surveyors and valuers under item No. 159.
  4. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in taxing items that were allegedly uncontested.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.
  • Taxing Officer's award of UGX 13,857,219 as instruction fees confirmed.
  • Taxing Officer's award of UGX 5,000,000 for disbursements confirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Standard of Review on Appeal from Taxing Officer
A court hearing a reference against a ruling involving the exercise of a Taxing Officer's discretion will not normally interfere with the ruling merely because it would have awarded a different figure. Interference is justified only where the amount taxed was manifestly excessive or manifestly deficient as to amount to an injustice, or the Taxing Officer followed a wrong principle or applied wrong considerations.
Taxation of Costs — Calculation of Instruction Fees Where Value Ascertainable
Where the value of the subject matter is ascertainable from the amount claimed or judgment, the Taxing Officer must apply the arithmetical formula prescribed in the 6th Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations. The fee is calculated as a percentage of the value on a sliding scale, and the Taxing Officer does not exercise discretion but applies the formula.
Taxation of Costs — Certificate of Complexity Required for Higher Fee
Under Regulation 37 and 6th Schedule paragraph 1 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, an advocate handling a complex matter is entitled to claim a higher fee only upon applying to the Presiding Judge for a certificate allowing a higher fee. Without such certificate, no higher fee can be awarded regardless of the matter's complexity.
Taxation of Costs — Proof of Disbursements
Claims for disbursements must be specifically proved. Regulation 51 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations requires that all receipts or vouchers for disbursements charged in a bill of costs be produced at taxation if required by the Taxing Officer. Claims for reimbursement must be kept within the reality of indemnifying the litigant by replacing what was actually spent.
Taxation of Costs — Burden of Proof on Appeal
An appellant challenging a taxation ruling must clearly point out the wrong principle followed by the Taxing Officer and demonstrate how discretion was wrongly exercised. It is not sufficient to merely allege improper exercise of discretion. The appellant bears the burden of proving the allegations on a balance of probabilities.
Affidavit Evidence — Failure to Rebut
Facts adduced in affidavit evidence which are neither denied nor rebutted are presumed to be admitted. Where a party fails to file a rejoinder to rebut facts deponed in an affidavit in reply, those facts are deemed admitted.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (4)

  • Alcon International Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda & 2 Others (Reference No. 1 of 2014)
  • Western Highlands Creameries v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Taxation Appeal No. 10 of 2013)
  • Aisha Agaba v Mable Bakaine (Taxation Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
  • Eridadi Ahimbisisbwe v World Food Program & others [1998] IV KALR 32

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabugo_v_Uganda_NationaL_Roads_Authority_(Civil_Miscellaneous_Appeal_No._43_of_2020)_[2021]_UGHCLD_154_(28_October_2021)
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.