Wakilii

Kakwezi Geoffrey v Mwebaza Edward (Civil Appeal 1 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1353 · 2025 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from Deputy Registrar's taxation of costs following dismissal of civil appeal
Decision
Instruction fees reduced; all other items in the taxed bill of costs 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 held that instruction fees of UGX 3,000,000 were manifestly excessive where the subject matter value was UGX 3,300,000, and reduced them to UGX 482,000 in accordance with the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018. The court upheld the taxing master's discretion on all other items, finding no error in principle or manifest injustice. The appeal was partially allowed with 50% costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Instruction fees reduced; all other items in the taxed bill of costs upheld

Facts

The Appellant was the unsuccessful party in a civil suit before the Chief Magistrate's Court at Katwe-Kabatooro. He appealed to the High Court at Fort Portal, but the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 14 October 2023 with costs. The Respondent filed a taxation application. The Appellant claimed he was unable to attend the taxation hearing on 23 April 2024 due to illness and had requested adjournments. He discovered after the fact that taxation had proceeded in his absence. The Respondent contended that proper hearing notices were served on the Appellant on two occasions (4 April 2024 and 17 April 2024) and that the Appellant was fully aware of the proceedings. The taxing master taxed the bill of costs, allowing instruction fees of UGX 3,000,000 among other items. The Appellant appealed, initially unrepresented, challenging multiple items in the taxed bill as excessive or improperly allowed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Deputy Registrar erred in taxing the bill of costs without proper notice to the Appellant.
  2. Whether the instruction fees of UGX 3,000,000 were manifestly excessive and outside the scale prescribed by law.
  3. Whether items 5, 7, and 11 (third copies of documents) were properly taxed.
  4. Whether items 8 and 9 (certificate of taxation) were properly taxed as separate items.
  5. Whether items 13 and 14 (affidavits of service) were properly taxed.
  6. Whether items 21 and 22 (transport costs and court filing fees) were properly taxed.

Orders

  • Appeal partially succeeds.
  • Instruction fees under item 1 of the bill of costs reduced from UGX 3,000,000 to UGX 482,000.
  • All other items allowed by the taxing master in HCT-01-CV-TA-0013-2024 are upheld.
  • 50% costs of the appeal awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Judicial Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion
A judge will interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of costs only in exceptional cases where it is shown that the taxing officer applied a wrong principle, which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low, and only if the error substantially affected the quantum and would cause injustice to one of the parties.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Application of Statutory Scale
Instruction fees must be calculated in accordance with the scale prescribed in the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations. Where the subject matter value is UGX 3,300,000, the instruction fee is 15% of the first UGX 2,000,000 plus 14% of the amount exceeding UGX 2,000,000, yielding UGX 482,000. An instruction fee of UGX 3,000,000 on such a matter is manifestly excessive and out of proportion with the value and importance of the suit.
Taxation of Costs — Filing Documents in Triplicate
It is proper practice to file court documents in triplicate to account for the parties and the court record. A taxing officer does not err in allowing costs for three copies of documents even where there are only two parties to the proceedings.
Taxation of Costs — Certificate of Taxation as Necessary Court Document
A certificate of taxation is a necessary court document for taxing purposes and may be taxed separately from the bill of costs under Paragraph 10(3) of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, which provides for taxation of all other necessary court documents.
Taxation of Costs — Affidavits of Service
Paragraph 10(2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations refers to affidavits generally without distinguishing between affidavits sworn for purposes of service and affidavits sworn for other purposes. Affidavits of service are therefore taxable under that provision.
Constitutional Interpretation — Substance over Form — Article 126(2)(e)
Where an unrepresented litigant institutes an appeal under the wrong statutory provisions, a court should not disregard the substantive merits of the appeal on the basis of a mere technicality, as doing so would offend the spirit of Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which requires substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1999)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11
  • Alexander Okello v M/S Kayondo & Company Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kakwezi Geoffrey v Mwebaza Edward (Civil Appeal 1 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1353 (10 December 2025)
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.