Wakilii

Lion Assurance v Kasekende Kyeyune & Lutaya Advocates (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 359 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGCOMMC 157 · 2013 Appeal Allowed — Taxation Award Set Aside AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation ruling of the Taxing Master arising out of advocate-client bill of costs following withdrawal of instructions
Decision
Taxation award set aside and matter remitted to Taxing Master for fresh taxation in accordance with law

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 allowed the appeal, holding that the Taxing Master did not exercise her powers judicially in taxing the bill of costs. The court found that the Taxing Master's ruling comprised only one sentence adopting reasoning from a related matter, constituting an error of principle. The taxation award was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh taxation in accordance with applicable rules and principles on advocate-client costs.

Outcome

Taxation award set aside and matter remitted to Taxing Master for fresh taxation in accordance with law

Facts

Lion Assurance Company Ltd retained Kasekende, Kyeyune and Lutaaya Advocates to recover USD 178,920 from DAMCO Logistics (U) Ltd pursuant to a subrogation agreement. The advocates filed suit HCCS No. 4 of 2012 and attended mediation sessions. Before scheduling or hearing, the client discharged the advocates and retained new counsel (Yiga Advocates). The respondent advocates filed an advocate-client bill of costs for Uganda Shillings 54,792,124/=. The Taxing Master allowed the bill at Uganda Shillings 12,083,000/= in Miscellaneous Cause No. 8 of 2013. The appellant challenged this taxation award on grounds that the Taxing Master did not exercise discretion judicially, allowed items covered by instruction fees, and failed to tax according to law. The Taxing Master's ruling consisted of one sentence adopting reasoning from another related taxation matter.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Master exercised her discretion judicially in taxing the advocate-client bill of costs.
  2. Whether the bill of costs was taxed according to law and in accordance with the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.
  3. Whether items covered by instruction fees were improperly allowed separately by the Taxing Master.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Taxation award of Uganda Shillings 12,083,000/= set aside.
  • Bill of Costs referred back to the Taxing Master for taxation afresh in accordance with specific rules and principles.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the Appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Duty of Taxing Master to Provide Reasoned Ruling
A Taxing Master must provide a reasoned ruling on taxation of costs addressing the specific items claimed and the applicable legal principles; a one-sentence ruling merely adopting reasoning from another matter without specific consideration of the items in the bill before the court constitutes a failure to exercise discretion judicially.
Taxation of Costs — Advocate-Client Bills — Instruction Fees
Instruction fees in advocate-client bills should cover the advocate's work including taking instructions as well as other necessary work for presenting the case for trial, and items forming part of such necessary work ought not to be allowed separately unless the regulations specifically provide for them outside instruction fees.
Taxation Appeals — Grounds for Interference with Taxing Master's Award
A court hearing an appeal from taxation will interfere with a Taxing Master's award where the Taxing Master failed to exercise discretion judicially or erred on matters of principle, but will not interfere solely on questions of quantum where correct principles have been followed.
Taxation of Costs — Proportionate Assessment of Instruction Fees Where Work Incomplete
Where an advocate has not completed the work contemplated by the retainer, instruction fees should be computed in proportion to the amount of work actually performed, as instruction fees are awarded in contemplation of an advocate completing the whole case and grow as the matter proceeds.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Advocates Act s.62(1)
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Rules r.3
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Rules r.4
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Rules r.9
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule r.1(a)(ix)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule r.1(b)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule r.2
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule r.3
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule r.4
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule r.5
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule r.6
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations r.6(A)

Cases cited (14)

  • Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electric (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
  • Ishanga Ndyanabo Longino v Bahatahwa Nyine (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal Reference No. 16 of 2003)
  • Kabale Kwagala v Beatrice Ziraba Muzale Magola and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 34 of 2010)
  • Electoral Commission and Hon. Kirunda Kivejinja v Hon. Abdu Katuntu (Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 001 of 2009 and 002 of 2010)
  • Mayers and Another v Hamilton and Others [1975] 1 EA 13
  • Alexander Okello v Kayondo and Company Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • C.C. Chandram v Kengrow Industries Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2002)
  • A Kassam and 2 Others versus Habre International
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd And Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and Others [1972] EA 162
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11
  • Lion Assurance Company Ltd v Kasekende Kyeyune and Lutaaya Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 358 of 2013)
  • Miscellaneous Cause number 7 of 2013
  • Miscellaneous Cause number 8 of 2013

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lion Assurance v Kasekende Kyeyune & Lutaya Advocates (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 359 of 2013) [2013] UGCommC 157 (16 September 2013)
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.