Wakilii

Kenya Ports Authority v Modern Holdings Ltd (Taxation Reference 1 of 2009)

East African Court of Justice · [2010] EACJ 1 · 2010 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside Taxing Officer's ruling on bill of costs
Decision
Taxing Officer's ruling of 7 August 2009 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 Court declined to interfere with the Taxing Officer's award of instruction fees. A Taxing Officer's discretion on instruction fees will only be disturbed where exercised unjudicially, upon wrong principles, or with wrong considerations. Here, the underlying reference was dismissed on preliminary objection for want of jurisdiction without proceeding to merits. The Taxing Officer correctly awarded one-eighth of the amount claimed (USD 40,822.60 plus VAT), which was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Taxing Officer's ruling of 7 August 2009 upheld

Facts

Kenya Ports Authority applied to set aside a Taxing Officer's ruling dated 7 August 2009 concerning taxation of costs. The applicant sought to have items 1, 2, 25 and 26 of its Bill of Costs dated 16 March 2009 re-taxed. At hearing, counsel abandoned all items except item 1 (instruction fee). The underlying matter was Reference No. 1 of 2008 between the same parties, which had been dismissed on preliminary objection for want of jurisdiction without proceeding to merits. The Taxing Officer had awarded one-eighth of the instruction fee claimed (USD 40,822.60 plus 16% VAT, totalling USD 47,354.20). The applicant contended this was inordinately low, that the Taxing Officer misdirected himself in law, failed to consider the nature and complexity of the matter, applied irrelevant considerations, and invoked the wrong rule.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in law in awarding an inordinately low instruction fee.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer failed to take into account the nature, amount, complexity and importance of the underlying reference.
  3. Whether the Taxing Officer applied the wrong rule (Rule 9(1) instead of Rule 9(2) of the Second Schedule).
  4. Whether the Court should interfere with the Taxing Officer's exercise of discretion on quantum.

Orders

  • Application to set aside the Taxing Officer's ruling dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Discretion of Taxing Officer
The allowance for instruction fees is a matter peculiarly within the Taxing Officer's discretion and courts are reluctant to interfere with that discretion unless it has been exercised unjudicially, upon wrong principles, or with wrong considerations.
Taxation of Costs — Assessment Where Matter Dismissed on Preliminary Objection
Where a reference is dismissed on preliminary objection for want of jurisdiction without proceeding to merits, the instruction fee should be assessed on a reduced basis reflecting the limited work done, and one-eighth of the amount initially claimed may be appropriate.
Costs — Policy Considerations — Access to Justice
Costs should not be allowed to rise to such a level as to confine access to the courts to the wealthy, and the successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed for the costs incurred.

Legislation cited (3)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 114
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Second Schedule Rule 9(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Second Schedule Rule 9(2)

Cases cited (7)

  • Jareth Limited v Kigano & Associates (Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1999)
  • Hotel Travertine Ltd v National Bank of Commerce (Taxation Civil Reference No. 9 of 2006)
  • Attorney General v Amos Shavu (Taxation Reference No. 2 of 2000)
  • Rahim Hasham v Alibhai Kadershai (1938) 1 TLR (R) 676
  • Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd [1972] EA 162
  • Rogan-Kamper v Lord Grosvenor (No. 3) [1976-80] KLR 665
  • Devshi Dhanji and Others v Kanji Naran Patel and Others (No. 2) [1976-80] KLR 1024

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kenya Ports Authority v Modern Holdings Ltd (Taxation Reference 1 of 2009) [2010] EACJ 1 (15 January 2010)
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.