Wakilii

Lajul v Kato & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 168 of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 53 · 2019 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of costs under section 62 of the Advocates Act and Regulation 3 of The Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations
Decision
Awards of the Taxing Officer set aside; bills of costs remitted for fresh taxation with reasoned rulings

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 set aside taxation awards totalling UGX 64,352,000 because the Taxing Officer failed to provide a reasoned ruling explaining the amounts allowed. Held that a judicial decision without reasons is a nullity. A Taxing Officer must explain the considerations upon which discretion was exercised, both to ensure fairness to the parties and to enable effective appellate review. The bills of costs were remitted for fresh taxation with reasoned rulings.

Outcome

Awards of the Taxing Officer set aside; bills of costs remitted for fresh taxation with reasoned rulings

Facts

The appellant appealed three taxation awards totalling UGX 64,352,000 (awards of UGX 18,668,000, UGX 13,508,000, and UGX 32,176,000) made by the Taxing Officer on 16 November 2018. The appellant contended the awards were excessive and based on wrong principles. The appellant's counsel had sustained a foot fracture on the date of taxation and could not attend, yet taxation proceeded ex parte. The first respondent averred that the appellant's counsel had been duly served with a taxation hearing notice on 29 October 2018 but neither the appellant nor his advocate appeared in court on the appointed date.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer's awards of costs were excessive.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer's taxation ruling was invalid for failure to provide reasons for the awards.

Orders

  • The awards of the Taxing Officer in respect of each of the three bills of costs are set aside.
  • The bills of costs are to be taxed afresh.
  • Reasons for the resultant awards are to be given to the parties in a ruling of the Taxing Officer.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Duty to Give Reasons
A Taxing Officer exercising discretion in the taxation of costs has a duty to give reasons for the amounts allowed in a taxation ruling, as parties are entitled to know the considerations upon which the discretion was exercised and to assess the prospects of succeeding in an appeal.
Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Reasoned Decisions
A judicial decision without reasons is a nullity. The duty to give reasons is a function of the rule of law and justice, ensuring that decisions are not the result of caprice but are arrived at after considering relevant law, and enabling appellate review.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Appellate Interference
A Judge of the High Court may interfere with a Taxing Officer's exercise of discretion where there has been an error in principle, where the award is so manifestly excessive as to indicate the exercise of a wrong principle, or where exceptional circumstances justify intervention.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Substantial Prejudice
Substantial prejudice is occasioned to a judgment debtor where reasons for a taxation award are totally lacking or so inadequately expressed that the debtor cannot reasonably assess the prospects of succeeding in an appeal or where the debtor is deprived of an available appeal on the substance of the award.
Administrative Law — Judicial Power — Recording of Reasons
The obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by authority invested with judicial power, gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made, and enables the aggrieved party to demonstrate that the reasons are erroneous.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Advocates Act s.62
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations reg.3

Cases cited (6)

  • Thomas James Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] EA 492
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (S.C. Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Limited [2002] 1 WLR 2409
  • Cullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] 1 WLR 1763
  • Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 2 QB 175
  • Stefan v General Medical Council [1999] 1 WLR 1293

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lajul v Kato & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 168 of 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 53 (28 February 2019)
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.