Wakilii

Kayongo Muhammad v Mukiibi Abdulrahim [2026] UGHCCD 238

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation reference to a judge of the High Court challenging a Deputy Registrar's taxation award and certificate of taxation
Decision
Taxation reference dismissed; Taxing Officer's award and certificate of taxation left undisturbed

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 dismissed a taxation reference challenging a Deputy Registrar's award of costs, including an instruction fee of UGX 5,692,000. It held that a judge will not ordinarily interfere with a Taxing Officer's discretion on quantum, since taxation is a function calling for particular expertise; intervention is reserved for exceptional cases where the Taxing Officer acted on a wrong principle, misdirected herself in law or fact, or made an award so manifestly excessive or low as to occasion injustice. The applicant's complaints went essentially to quantum and no error of principle or exceptional circumstance was demonstrated. The certificate of taxation stood and the applicant was ordered to pay costs of the application.

Outcome

Taxation reference dismissed; Taxing Officer's award and certificate of taxation left undisturbed

Facts

The respondent filed a bill of costs of UGX 13,334,500 in Taxation Application No. 182 of 2025, arising from Civil Suit No. 291 of 2024. On 23 February 2026 the Deputy Registrar issued a certificate of taxation awarding UGX 10,240,500, which included an instruction fee of UGX 5,692,000. The applicant brought a taxation reference contending that the taxed sum was excessive, highly penal and contrary to the applicable scale under the Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, and that the bill contained calculation errors and illegalities. He complained that the instruction fee was disproportionate to the nature, complexity and value of the subject matter, and that items for commissioning of affidavits, transport, telephone expenses, service of documents and miscellaneous attendances were unsupported, duplicative or irrecoverable. The respondent replied that the Taxing Officer properly applied the law, that no errors or illegalities existed, that the complaints had not been raised at the taxation hearing where both counsel appeared, and that the reference was a delay tactic to deny him the fruits of the judgment. Both parties filed written submissions.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established a sufficient legal basis for the court to interfere with and set aside the Taxing Officer's award in Taxation Application No. 182 of 2025.
  2. Whether the instruction fee of UGX 5,692,000 and the disbursements allowed by the Taxing Officer were excessive, irregular or irrecoverable.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The Applicant shall pay the costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation Reference — Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion on Quantum
A judge will not ordinarily interfere with a Taxing Officer's exercise of discretion on matters of quantum; intervention is reserved for exceptional cases where it is shown that the Taxing Officer acted on a wrong principle, misdirected herself in law or fact, or arrived at an award so manifestly excessive or so manifestly low as to occasion injustice.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Instruction Fees — Principles of Assessment
Instruction fees should fairly compensate counsel for taking instructions and preparing the case; there is no mathematical formula, each case turns on its own facts and circumstances, the value of the subject matter may be relevant, and the Taxing Officer must exercise discretion judicially rather than whimsically, balancing access to justice against the sustainability of the legal profession and consistency of awards.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation Reference — Burden on Applicant to Particularise Error
An applicant seeking to set aside a taxation award bears the burden of demonstrating with particularity the error of principle, calculation error or illegality complained of; a general assertion that the award is excessive, which in substance challenges only quantum, does not justify appellate intervention in taxation.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kayongo Muhammad v Mukiibi Abdulrahim [2026] UGHCCD 238 (20 July 2026)
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.