Wakilii

Lanyero Sarah & Anor v Lanyero Molly (Reference No. 225 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2014] UGCA 122 · 2014 Reference Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single Justice of Appeal from the taxation ruling and order of the Registrar/Taxing Officer
Decision
Reference partly allowed; taxed bill of costs reduced from shs. 105,545,000/- to shs. 40,940,000/-

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

On a reference from the taxing officer, the single Justice held that election petitions and appeals differ fundamentally from ordinary civil matters and that costs must not be so excessive as to deter participation in the electoral process, particularly for marginalised groups. Finding the appeal ordinary and not complex, the Court held the instruction fees of shs.50,000,000 for leading counsel and shs.35,000,000 for assisting counsel manifestly excessive, reducing them to shs.15,000,000 and shs.8,000,000 respectively. The Court also disallowed items charging separately for copies where only one party was served, and disallowed drawing, filing, serving and taxation costs where over one third of the bill had been taxed off. The bill was reduced from shs.105,545,000 to shs.40,940,000.

Outcome

Reference partly allowed; taxed bill of costs reduced from shs. 105,545,000/- to shs. 40,940,000/-

Facts

Following Election Appeal No. 32 of 2011, in which Lanyero Sarah Ochieng was successful and awarded costs, she filed a bill of costs totalling shs. 749,975,000/-. On 30 October 2013 the Assistant Registrar/Taxing Officer taxed and allowed the bill at shs. 105,545,000/-, including instruction fees of shs. 50,000,000/- for leading counsel and shs. 35,000,000/- for assisting counsel. Lanyero Molly, the unsuccessful party in the appeal, being dissatisfied, referred the taxation to a single Justice, contending that the taxing officer failed to apply the correct taxation principles for election petitions, allowed a manifestly excessive bill, awarded instruction fees without legal basis, and failed to evaluate the evidence. The record showed the appeal comprised only four grounds (in substance two), a record of 232 pages, was argued in one day, and produced a 32-page judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer properly applied the principles of taxation applicable to election appeals.
  2. Whether the instruction fees awarded to leading and assisting counsel were manifestly excessive.
  3. Whether costs awarded for drawing and copying documents and for the taxation itself were properly allowed.

Orders

  • Instruction fees for lead counsel reduced to shs. 15,000,000/-.
  • Instruction fees for supporting counsel reduced to shs. 8,000,000/-.
  • Items 5,7,9,13,15,17,19,21,23,72,74 and 82 (totalling shs. 1,750,000/-) disallowed.
  • Items 71,73,75,77,79,80,81,83,84,86,88,89,90,91,94,100,103,106,107 and 110 (totalling shs. 855,000/-) taxed off.
  • Bill of costs reduced from shs. 105,545,000/- to shs. 40,940,000/-.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Reference to a Judge — When Court Will Interfere with Taxing Officer's Award
A court will only interfere with an award of costs by a taxing officer where the costs awarded are so manifestly low or high that they amount to an injustice to one of the parties.
Costs — Taxation in Election Petitions and Appeals — Distinction from Ordinary Civil Matters
Election petitions and appeals differ fundamentally from ordinary civil suits, having no specific subject matter value, evidence by affidavit, generally bulky pleadings and few specific issues, and each such case must be taxed on its own merits and circumstances.
Costs — Public Policy — Chilling Effect of Excessive Costs on Electoral Participation
Costs in election petitions must not be manifestly excessive, as high legal costs deter participation in elective office, reverse affirmative action for marginalised groups such as women, youth and persons with disabilities, and must not be used as a weapon against political opponents.
Costs — Taxation — Fees for Drawing Documents and Copies
Under Rule 10 of the Third Schedule, where only one party is served, the fee for drawing a document includes preparation of all copies, and a taxing officer errs by awarding costs for production of copies separately.
Costs — Taxation — Effect of Taxing Off More Than One Third of the Bill
Where a taxing officer taxes off more than one third of a bill of costs, the costs for drawing, filing, serving and attending taxation of the bill must be disallowed under Rule 13 of the Third Schedule.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 110(1)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 110(3)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 110(4)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Third Schedule Rule 9
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Third Schedule Rule 9(2)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Third Schedule Rule 10
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Third Schedule Rule 13
  • Constitution of Uganda National Objective XI
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 78
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 32

Cases cited (4)

  • Akisoferi Michael Ogola v Akika Othieno Emmanuel and Another (Court of Appeal No. 18 of 1999)
  • Obiga Kania v Wadri Kassiano Ezati and Another (Civil Reference No. 32 of 2004)
  • Ngoma Ngime v Electoral Commission and Hon. Winnie Byanyima (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Nangiro John v The Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 26 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lanyero Sarah & Anor Vs Lanyero Molly (Reference No. 225 of 2013) [2014] UGCA 122 (30 June 2014)
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.