Wakilii

Kalyanjee v M.M Stores (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1947)

East African Court of Appeal · [1950] EACA 630 · 1950 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Registrar's taxation of bill of costs following successful opposition to appeal in breach of contract suit
Decision
Appeal dismissed; taxation of instruction fee upheld; perusal fee remitted for adjustment

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 Court held that the subject matter of a suit is not the sole consideration in taxation of costs; the complexity of issues involved is also material. The general rule that the Registrar's discretion on quantum is final may be varied only in exceptional cases where the Registrar acted on a wrong principle. The instruction fee of Sh. 600 for opposing a Supreme Court appeal was not so patently excessive as to warrant intervention, though the perusal fee was remitted for adjustment to not exceed fifty cents per folio.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; taxation of instruction fee upheld; perusal fee remitted for adjustment

Facts

The respondent plaintiff obtained judgment for Sh. 554 in a breach of contract suit in the Resident Magistrate's Court at Eldoret. The appellant defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, raising a jurisdictional issue. The respondent instructed counsel to oppose the appeal. The appellant withdrew the appeal before hearing. The respondent's bill of costs included an instruction fee of Sh. 750 for opposing the appeal. The Registrar taxed off Sh. 150, allowing Sh. 600. At a subsequent hearing of the appellant's objections, the Registrar refused further reduction. The appellant appealed the taxation, arguing the instruction fee was patently excessive given the suit's value of Sh. 554 and that the issues were not complex.

Issues

  1. Whether the instruction fee of Sh. 600 allowed by the Registrar for opposing an appeal was so excessive as to indicate the Registrar acted on a wrong principle.
  2. Whether the perusal fee allowed should be reduced or disallowed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Perusal fee on Item 4 remitted to Registrar for adjustment to not exceed fifty cents per folio.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Factors to Consider — Subject Matter and Complexity
In taxation of costs, the subject matter of a suit is not the sole consideration; the complexity of the issues involved is also material.
Taxation of Costs — Registrar's Discretion — Appellate Intervention
The general rule is that the Registrar's discretion on questions of quantum in taxation of costs is final. The Court will interfere only in exceptional cases where the sum allowed is so large that the Court is driven to conclude the Taxing Officer must have acted upon a wrong principle.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Assessment Principles
An instruction fee that exceeds the total value of the suit is not by itself decisive of excessiveness; it is one factor among others to be considered, including the nature of the proceedings, the court level, and the work required of counsel.
Taxation of Costs — Withdrawal of Appeal — Effect on Costs
Where a party withdraws an appeal after the opposing party has instructed counsel and counsel has prepared for the hearing, the withdrawal does not affect the entitlement to costs already incurred; the filing of the appeal put the respondent to the trouble and expense of engaging counsel.

Cases cited (6)

  • Patel v Shivji Jetha & Another (21 KLR 27)
  • Hasham Kara v Karmali (22 KLR 1)
  • Zala v Jiwan Singh & Others (22 KLR 6)
  • Patel v Shivji Jetha & Another (21 KLR 27)
  • Lakhani v Bhojani (Civil Case No. 667 of 1949)
  • Zala v Jiwan Singh & Others (22 KLR 6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kalyanjee v M.M Stores (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1947) [1950] EACA 630 (1 January 1950)
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.