Wakilii

Kasibbo v Mbogo and Anor (HCT-04-CV-CA 99 of 2013)

High Court · [2016] UGHCEP 82 · 2016 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation orders in an election petition matter
Decision
Appeal allowed in whole against 2nd Respondent with its taxed bill set aside; appeal partly allowed against 1st Respondent with adjustments to bill of costs

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

Held that instruction fees under SI 267-4 cover ordinary preparatory steps including perusal of petition and answer, and separate awards for such items must be disallowed. Where no costs order was made in favour of a party in the underlying judgment, it is erroneous for a taxing master to receive and tax that party's bill of costs. Costs must be awarded by a competent court and cannot be assumed. Appeal allowed in part against the 1st Respondent by taxing off items duplicating instruction fees; appeal allowed in whole against the 2nd Respondent, and its taxed bill set aside as null and void.

Outcome

Appeal allowed in whole against 2nd Respondent with its taxed bill set aside; appeal partly allowed against 1st Respondent with adjustments to bill of costs

Facts

The appellant appealed against taxation orders dated 30 June 2013 by the Assistant Registrar at Mbale. The taxation followed the judgment in Election Petition No. 04 of 2011 delivered by Hon. Justice Mike Chibita. The 1st Respondent's bill of costs was taxed and allowed at UGX 23,513,500 while the 2nd Respondent's bill was allowed at UGX 23,660,000. The appellant raised four grounds of appeal (abandoning ground 1). The appellant contended that items 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the 1st Respondent's bill duplicated instruction fees, that items 8, 12, and 18 lacked particulars and should have been minimally taxed, that the award for attending court was excessive, and that the 2nd Respondent had not been awarded costs in the underlying judgment. The 2nd Respondent did not oppose the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxation award of UGX 23,513,500 to the 1st Respondent was manifestly excessive and unreasonable.
  2. Whether items 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the 1st Respondent's bill should have been taxed off as already covered under instruction fees.
  3. Whether items 8, 12, and 18 lacking particulars of folios should have been awarded only a bare minimum of 2 folios per document.
  4. Whether the award of UGX 100,000 for attending court to receive judgment was reasonable.
  5. Whether the 2nd Respondent was entitled to costs when no costs order was made in its favour in the underlying judgment.

Orders

  • Appeal succeeds in whole against the 2nd Respondent.
  • The 2nd Respondent's taxed bill of costs of UGX 23,660,000 is null and void and is hereby nullified and set aside.
  • Appeal succeeds in part against the 1st Respondent.
  • Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 are taxed off wholly from the 1st Respondent's bill.
  • Item 2 taxed off by UGX 15,000.
  • Item 3 taxed off by UGX 50,000.
  • Item 4 taxed off by UGX 50,000.
  • Item 5 taxed off by UGX 600,000.
  • The 1st Respondent's instruction fees of UGX 15,000,000 are not altered.
  • Appellant is granted full costs of the appeal against the 2nd Respondent.
  • Appellant to bear his own costs as against the 1st Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Scope
Instruction fees cover the advocate's work including taking instructions and other ordinary preparatory work necessary for presenting the case for trial or appeal, including perusal of pleadings and copies thereof, and separate awards for such preparatory steps already encompassed by instruction fees ought to be disallowed.
Taxation of Costs — Taxing Officer's Discretion — Interference on Appeal
An appellate court will interfere with a taxing officer's discretion only if the award is manifestly excessive, or there is misdirection, or the award was arrived at using wrong principles.
Taxation of Costs — Inflation and Assessment
Inflation must be borne in mind when taxation of costs is done, though it should not be a basis for awarding exorbitant costs.
Costs Orders — Entitlement — Necessity of Court Award
Costs must be awarded by a competent court and cannot be assumed; where no costs order was made in favour of a respondent in the underlying judgment, it is erroneous for a taxing master to receive and tax that party's bill of costs.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Patrick Makumbi and Anor v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
  • General Parts U Ltd v Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2000)
  • Chandran v. Kengrow Industries Ltd SC C/App

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasibbo v Mbogo and Anor (HCT-04-CV-CA 99 of 2013) [2016] UGHCEP 82 (16 December 2016)
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.