Wakilii

Kapeeka Coffee Works Ltd. and Another v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Reference No. 21 of 2001)

Court of Appeal · [2001] UGCA 72 · 2001 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single Judge of the Court of Appeal challenging a taxing officer's assessment of instruction fee in a bill of costs
Decision
Reference dismissed; taxing officer's instruction fee of Shs.8,000,000 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

On a reference challenging a taxing officer's award of instruction fee, the single Judge held that a Judge may interfere with a taxing officer's exercise of discretion only where a wrong principle was applied, the error substantially affected the quantum, and upholding it would cause injustice. The order striking out the plaint for disclosing no cause of action was interlocutory and did not dispose of the question of liability, so the monetary value of the underlying debt claim was irrelevant to assessing the instruction fee. The taxing officer correctly applied the principles of consistency and reasonableness. The reference was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Reference dismissed; taxing officer's instruction fee of Shs.8,000,000 upheld

Facts

The respondent had sued the applicants and another before the Non-Performing Assets Recovery (NPART) Tribunal to recover Shs.839,030,582, a non-performing asset assigned to it by Uganda Commercial Bank under the NPART Statute No. 11 of 1994. At the hearing the applicants raised a preliminary objection that the amended plaint disclosed no cause of action. The Tribunal overruled the objection, but on appeal the Court of Appeal upheld it. Following that success, the applicants filed a bill of costs including item 1, an instruction fee of Shs.83,900,000. The taxing officer taxed and allowed that item at Shs.8,000,000, prompting this reference. The applicants contended the award was manifestly inadequate because the taxing officer failed to consider the research carried out by counsel and the value of the subject matter, and wrongly described the striking-out order as interlocutory.

Issues

  1. Whether the instruction fee taxed and allowed at Shs.8,000,000 was manifestly inadequate.
  2. Whether the taxing officer wrongly applied the principles of taxation in assessing the instruction fee.
  3. Whether the order striking out the plaint on appeal was interlocutory such that the value of the subject matter could not be considered in assessing the instruction fee.

Orders

  • The reference is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • The amount allowed by the taxing officer as instruction fee is upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Reference against Taxing Officer's Discretion
A Judge on a reference should interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of instruction fee only where satisfied that the taxing officer applied a wrong principle, the error substantially affected the decision on quantum, and that upholding the amount would cause injustice to a party.
Costs — Instruction Fee — Factors under Paragraph 9(2) of the Third Schedule
In determining a reasonable instruction fee, a taxing officer must have regard to the amount involved in the appeal, its nature, importance and difficulty, the interests of the parties, other costs allowed, the general conduct of proceedings and all relevant circumstances, exercising a judicial discretion.
Costs — Instruction Fee — Relevance of Value of Subject Matter where Order is Interlocutory
Where an appellate order merely strikes out a plaint for disclosing no cause of action and does not dispose of the question of liability, the order is interlocutory and the monetary value of the underlying claim is not a relevant factor in assessing the instruction fee.
Judgments and Orders — Test for Distinguishing Interlocutory from Final Orders
The test for whether an order is interlocutory or final is whether it finally disposes of the rights of the parties; if it does, it is final, but if it does not, it is interlocutory.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 109(1)(b) and (5)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal, Third Schedule paragraph 9(2)
  • Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute No. 11 of 1994

Cases cited (4)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Mukula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11
  • Development Finance Company Ltd and 2 Others v Uganda Polybags (Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1998)
  • Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council [1903] 1 KB 547

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kapeeka Coffee Works Ltd. and Another v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Reference No. 21 of 2001) [2001] UGCA 72 (20 September 2001)
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.