Wakilii

Lion Insurance Company Ltd v Kasekende Kyeyune & Lutaya Advocates (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 358 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGCOMMC 154 · 2013 Appeal Allowed — Matter Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation ruling of the Taxing Master under section 62(1) of the Advocates Act
Decision
Taxation ruling set aside and matter remitted to Taxing Master for fresh taxation according to 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

Held that the Taxing Master erred in law and failed to exercise discretion judicially by awarding fees arbitrarily without establishing the time spent for meetings and mediation, and by separately awarding fees for legal research and preparation of scheduling notes when these should have been covered by instruction fees or fees for drawing necessary court papers. The taxation award was set aside and the matter remitted for retaxation in accordance with the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.

Outcome

Taxation ruling set aside and matter remitted to Taxing Master for fresh taxation according to law

Facts

The appellant insurance company retained the respondent law firm to recover US$34,742 from DAMCO Logistics. After mediation failed and scheduling notes were filed, the appellant discharged the respondent advocates and retained new counsel (Yiga Advocates). The suit had not proceeded to hearing and was scheduled for a scheduling conference. The respondents filed an advocate/client bill of costs claiming UGX 37,637,347. The Taxing Master taxed the bill and awarded UGX 21,255,468. The appellant appealed on grounds that the Taxing Master did not exercise discretion judicially, awarded fees for items neither factual nor believable, and failed to tax according to law. The respondents obtained garnishee proceedings and recovered the taxed amount from the appellant's bank account before the appeal was heard.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Master exercised her discretion judicially in taxing the bill of costs.
  2. Whether the bill of costs was taxed according to law and the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.
  3. Whether the instruction fees awarded covered all items claimed by the respondent advocates, or whether separate fees could be awarded for drawing court papers, attendances, and legal research.
  4. Whether advocates who have not completed handling a matter are entitled to the full instruction fees calculated under the rules.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The taxation award of the Taxing Master is set aside.
  • The bill of costs is referred back to the Taxing Master for taxation afresh in accordance with the specific rules and principles contained in the judgment.
  • Costs of the appeal to be borne by the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Advocate/Client Bills — Instruction Fees — Scope
Instruction fees should cover the advocate's work, including taking instructions as well as other necessary work for presenting the case for trial or appeal. The Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule provides specific fees for drawing court papers, attendances, and other activities separate from instruction fees.
Taxation of Costs — Taxing Master's Discretion — Arbitrary Awards
A taxing master errs in law and on principle when awarding fees for attendances or meetings without evidence of the duration or number of meetings held. An award calculated by arbitrary multiplication (e.g., 125 x 15-minute periods at UGX 12,000 each) without supporting evidence is not a judicial exercise of discretion.
Taxation of Costs — Legal Research and Scheduling Notes — Covered by Instruction Fees
Separate fees for legal research and preparation of scheduling notes cannot be awarded in addition to instruction fees where such work is covered by instruction fees and by fees for drawing necessary court papers under item 2(e) of the Sixth Schedule. To award separate fees for these items constitutes an error in principle.
Taxation of Costs — Multiple Counsel — Apportionment of Instruction Fees
Where a client instructs successive counsel to handle the same matter and no certificate is given by the presiding judge certifying the need for more than one counsel, the instruction fees calculated under the Sixth Schedule must be apportioned between the counsel in proportion to the amount of work done by each. The client cannot be charged double instruction fees for the same matter.
Interpretation of Statutory Instruments — Taxation Rules — Supremacy of Written Law
Each statute and statutory instrument must be interpreted on the basis of its own language. General principles derived from common law, doctrines of equity, or established customs apply only where there is no specific written rule or where a rule is ambiguous. The High Court's jurisdiction must be exercised in conformity with written law under section 14 of the Judicature Act.
Taxation of Costs — One-Third Rule — Uniformity of Application
The one-third rule under item 1(b) of the Sixth Schedule provides a uniform formula for fixing instruction fees as between advocate and client where they fail to agree. After the basic fee is properly established according to the Sixth Schedule, it must be increased by one-third. The taxing officer has no discretion to reduce fees where the basic fee has been properly established.

Legislation cited (21)

  • 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 r.2
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations r.57
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 1(a)(iv)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 1(a)(v)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 1(a)(vi)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 1(a)(ix)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 1(a)(xi)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 1(b)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 2(e)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 5(l)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule item 5(p)
  • Judicature Act s.14(2)(a)
  • Judicature Act s.14(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.109(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.9(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.105(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.9(2)

Cases cited (17)

  • Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electric (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
  • Ishanga Ndyanabo Longino v Bahatahwa Nyine (Court of Appeal Reference No. 16 of 2003)
  • Kabale Kwagala v Beatrice Ziraba Muzale Magola and another (Miscellaneous Application No. 34 of 2010)
  • Electoral Commission and Kirunda Kivejinja v Abdu Katuntu (Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 001 of 2009 and 002 of 2010)
  • 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 versus Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and others [1972] EA 162
  • Makula International Ltd versus Cardinal Nsubuga and another [1982] HCB page 11
  • Mayers and another versus Hamilton and others [1975] 1 EA at page 13
  • Lall v Jeypee Investments Ltd [1972] 1 EA 512
  • Attorney-General v HRH Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1957] 1 All ER 49
  • Nalumansi v Lule (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 12 of 1992)
  • Hashjam v Zanab [1957] EA 255
  • Kabanda v Kananura Melvin Consulting Engineers (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 24 of 1993)
  • Ellingsen v. Det Skandinaviske Compani, [1919] 2 K.B. 567

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lion Insurance Company Ltd v Kasekende Kyeyune & Lutaya Advocates (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 358 of 2013) [2013] UGCommC 154 (6 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.