Wakilii

Kwemara v Ndolerire and 5 Others (Taxation Appeal 5 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 475 · 2024 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of costs by Chief Magistrate's Court taxing officer
Decision
Bill of costs reduced from UGX 17,590,000 to UGX 17,025,000 on taxation appeal

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 partially allowed the taxation appeal, finding that the taxing officer generally exercised discretion judiciously but erred in allowing duplicate items and certain unsupported expenses. The court taxed off items 7-10 as duplicates of item 5, reduced item dated 22/1/2015 by UGX 100,000, taxed off items 48, 49, 69, and 74. The instruction fee of UGX 8,000,000 was upheld as reasonable where the value of the subject matter was not indicated. Total allowed costs reduced from UGX 17,590,000 to UGX 17,025,000.

Outcome

Bill of costs reduced from UGX 17,590,000 to UGX 17,025,000 on taxation appeal

Facts

The appellant sued the respondents for recovery of an unregistered plot of land with three double-roomed commercial houses at Kikaada village, Karuguza Town Council, Kibaale in Civil Suit No. 031 of 2014 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Hoima. The suit was decided in favour of the respondents with costs. The respondents filed a bill of costs which was taxed on 29th September 2021 and allowed at UGX 17,590,000. The appellant appealed, contending that the instruction fees of UGX 8,000,000 were manifestly excessive and contrary to the fixed scale fee, and that various items in the bill were improper, duplicative, or unsupported.

Issues

  1. Whether the instruction fees allowed by the taxing master at UGX 8,000,000 are manifestly excessive and contrary to the fixed scale fee under Schedule VI of the Advocates (Remuneration and taxation of costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.
  2. Whether the taxing officer exercised his discretion judiciously in allowing the entire bill of costs at UGX 17,590,000.

Orders

  • The taxation order of 29th September 2021 in Hoima Chief Magistrate's Court is set aside.
  • The bill of costs is taxed on appeal and allowed at UGX 17,025,000.
  • Each party to bear own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Principles of Appellate Interference
A judge does not interfere with the assessment of a taxing officer save in exceptional cases where it is shown that the taxing officer applied a wrong principle, which can be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low, and only if the error substantially affected the decision on quantum such that upholding the amount would cause injustice.
Taxation of Costs — Duplicative Items
A taxing officer may not allow costs for items that are duplicates of matters already covered in the bill, such as where written statements of defence components are claimed separately when already covered under a general item for filing the defence.
Taxation of Costs — Documentary Support
Items claimed in a bill of costs such as letters for pre-taxation must be supported by copies on the court record; unsupported items are properly taxed off.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees Where Value Not Indicated
Where the value of the subject matter is not indicated in a suit, the taxing officer has discretion to determine reasonable instruction fees based on the circumstances of the case, and a court on appeal will not interfere unless the amount is manifestly excessive or the taxing officer applied a wrong principle.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Advocates Act s.62(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Advocates (Taxation of costs) (Appeals & Reference) Regulations r.3
  • Advocates (Remuneration and taxation of costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Schedule VI
  • Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of costs) Regulations r.13
  • Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of costs) Regulations r.12(2)(1)
  • Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of costs) Regulations r.9

Cases cited (1)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kwemara v Ndolerire and 5 Others (Taxation Appeal 5 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 475 (21 June 2024)
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.