Kirya v Yoshino Trading Company Limited (Taxation Appeal No. 8 of 2020)
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 High Court dismissed the appeal against the Taxing Officer's award of UGX 10,393,400 in costs. The court held that where parties settle a matter out of court for UGX 21,000,000, it would be absurd to tax a bill of costs exceeding the settlement amount. The Taxing Officer properly applied the law in disallowing certain items and exercised his discretion reasonably in arriving at a fair value for professional work done.
Outcome
Taxation award of UGX 10,393,400 upheld
Facts
The appellant brought a civil suit (Civil Suit No. 226/2016) against the respondent. On 7 March 2019, the parties settled the matter out of court for UGX 21,000,000 before hearing commenced. No formal consent was filed, but the court ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the suit. The appellant filed a Bill of Costs totalling UGX 38,548,240 (inclusive of VAT). On 21 August 2020, the Deputy Registrar (Taxing Officer) delivered a ruling awarding UGX 10,393,400, disallowing several items. The appellant appealed, arguing the Taxing Officer erred in computation, failed to properly tax items according to the legal scale, and made an assessment erroneous on principle.
Issues
- Whether the Taxing Officer erred in the computation of the amounts taxed and allowed in the Bill of Costs.
- Whether the Taxing Officer properly taxed all items in the Bill of Costs in accordance with the applicable legal scale.
- Whether the assessment made by the Taxing Officer was erroneous on a matter of principle.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Each party to bear its own costs for this appeal.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Judicature Act s.62(1)
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI 267-5 Regulation 2(a)
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI 267-5 Regulation 3
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI 267-5 Regulation 9
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) SI 267-1 Schedule 6(2)(a)
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) SI 267-1 Regulation 5(c)
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulation 2018 Schedule 6(1)(4)
- Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulation Regulation 9
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 rule 3(1)
Cases cited (7)
- Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1995)
- Mugenyi v Hoima District Administration (Taxation Appeal No. 35 of 2017)
- Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electric (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
- Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 1995)
- Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11
- Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
- Electoral Commission & Another v Hon Abdul Katuntu (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 001 of 2009)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.