Wakilii

Lusagi v Ssenjumba and 7 Others (Taxation Appeal No. 7 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 224 · 2021 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from an award in Civil Appeal No. 005 of 2014
Decision
Appeal partly allowed; instruction fee of UGX 14,995,000 maintained; total bill of costs reduced from UGX 23,194,000 to UGX 20,064,000 by striking out trial court costs

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 instruction fee of UGX 14,995,000 was reasonable and not excessive for an appeal in a land trespass matter where both parties were represented. Held further that costs relating to the trial court proceedings were improperly included in the bill of costs where the trial magistrate had ordered each party to bear their own costs and only appeal costs were awarded. Items relating to trial court costs were struck out, reducing the total award from UGX 23,194,000 to UGX 20,064,000.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed; instruction fee of UGX 14,995,000 maintained; total bill of costs reduced from UGX 23,194,000 to UGX 20,064,000 by striking out trial court costs

Facts

The Appellant was the successful party in Civil Suit No. 106 of 2007 where the trial magistrate ordered both parties to bear their own costs. The Respondent filed Civil Appeal No. 005 of 2014 and succeeded, with costs of the appeal awarded to the Respondent. The Respondent's lawyers filed a bill of costs seeking UGX 40,831,000 which was taxed to UGX 23,194,000. The Appellant challenged this award as excessive, arguing that the instruction fee of UGX 14,995,000 was unreasonable given that the subject matter of the suit was land valued at UGX 1,200,000 in 1999 and the matter was not complex. The Appellant also contended that costs relating to the trial court proceedings were improperly included in the bill despite the trial magistrate's order that each party bear their own costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the award of a sum of UGX 14,995,000 as instruction fees is justifiable.
  2. Whether the award of a sum of UGX 23,194,000 being the total bill of costs taxed and allowed in Civil Appeal No. 005 of 2014 contravenes the principles governing taxation of costs.

Orders

  • Items 1 to 23 and 32 to 35 of the bill of costs as taxed by the taxing master are allowed as taxed.
  • Items 24 to 31 relating to proceedings in the trial court are struck out.
  • The total costs of UGX 3,130,000 for items 24 to 31 is deducted from the total award of UGX 23,194,000.
  • The Respondent is entitled to costs of UGX 20,064,000 being costs for Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2014.
  • No order as to costs in the instant appeal because the Appellant did not serve the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Assessment of Reasonableness
An instruction fee is manifestly excessive if it is out of proportion with the value and importance of the suit and the work involved, but the value of subject matter should be assessed at the time of taxation rather than at the time of the original transaction where the property has appreciated.
Taxation of Costs — Scope of Costs Order — Trial Court Costs
Where a trial court orders each party to bear their own costs and an appellate court awards only the costs of the appeal to the successful appellant, costs relating to the trial court proceedings cannot be included in the bill of costs for the appeal.
Taxation Appeals — Standard of Review — Judicial Deference
Save in exceptional cases, a judge should not interfere with the assessment of what the taxing officer considers to be a reasonable fee, as questions of quantum of costs are matters with which the taxing officer is particularly fitted to deal and in which the taxing officer has more experience than the judge.
Service of Process — Discretion to Proceed Despite Non-Service
Where a respondent has not been served with an appeal but counsel for the respondent files written submissions demonstrating awareness of the appeal, the court may exercise its discretion under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to proceed to address the merits of the appeal in the interests of justice.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Advocates Act s.62(1)
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and Reference) Regulations r.3(1)
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and Reference) Regulations r.3(2)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations r.2
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations r.13
  • 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(b)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 5
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98

Cases cited (7)

  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor [1982] HCB
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Thomas James Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] EA 492
  • Alexander Okello v M/s Kayondo & Company Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Nabanja v Nabukalu (Taxation Appeal No. 4 of 2018)
  • Makumbi and Another v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd [1990-1994] 1 EA 306

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lusagi v Ssenjumba and 7 Others (Taxation Appeal No. 7 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 224 (22 October 2021)
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.