Wakilii

M s Kituuma-Magala & Co. Advocates v Attorney General (Misc. Appeal Taxation Appeal No. 2617 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 304 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation ruling by Deputy Registrar on advocate-client bill of costs
Decision
Appeal dismissed; taxation ruling of Deputy Registrar upheld

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 dismissed the appeal, holding that the taxing officer correctly relied on the value of the subject matter as pleaded in the plaints at the time of filing the suits (UGX 2,000,000,000) rather than a subsequent valuation report from 2023. The court held that instruction fees must be calculated based on the value at the time of filing, not at the time of taxation, to prevent advocates from delaying taxation to benefit from property appreciation. The awarded instruction fees were found reasonable and not manifestly low.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; taxation ruling of Deputy Registrar upheld

Facts

The appellant law firm represented Uganda Railways Corporation in consolidated civil suits concerning 93.61 acres of land in Nsambya, Kampala. The suits were filed in 2013 and 2018 with pleaded values exceeding UGX 2,000,000,000 and UGX 1,800,000,000 respectively. After obtaining leave to tax their advocate-client bill of costs, the appellant submitted a 2023 valuation report valuing the land at UGX 5,000,000,000 per acre. The Deputy Registrar taxed the bill based on the pleaded values from 2013 and 2018, awarding UGX 45,000,000 instruction fees for each civil suit and UGX 3,000,000 for each of eight miscellaneous applications, totalling UGX 152,429,200. The appellant appealed, arguing the fees were manifestly low and the taxing officer should have relied on the current valuation.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer erred in valuing the subject matter at UGX 2,000,000,000 based on the pleadings rather than a current valuation report showing UGX 5,000,000,000 per acre.
  2. Whether the instruction fees of UGX 45,000,000 for each civil suit were manifestly low.
  3. Whether the instruction fees of UGX 3,000,000 for each miscellaneous application were manifestly low.
  4. Whether the taxing officer failed to apply the relevant principles of taxation in arriving at a total taxed bill of UGX 152,429,200.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Valuation of Subject Matter — Time of Assessment
For purposes of calculating instruction fees under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, the value of the subject matter must be determined as at the time of filing the suit, not at the time of taxation, even where a current valuation report shows significant appreciation.
Taxation of Costs — Valuation Evidence — Pleadings versus Valuation Report
Where pleadings state the value of the subject matter at the time of filing and a party later submits a valuation report showing current market value, the taxing officer is entitled to rely on the pleaded value as the only reliable figure reflecting the value at the time the cause of action arose.
Taxation of Costs — Burden of Proof — Historical Valuation
Where an advocate seeks to rely on a valuation report to establish the value of subject matter for taxation purposes, the burden is on the advocate to provide a valuation that reflects the property's value as at the time of filing the suit, not a current valuation showing appreciation over time.
Taxation Appeals — Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion
A judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of costs merely because a different amount might have been awarded, but only where it is shown that the taxing officer applied a wrong principle or the amount awarded is manifestly excessive or manifestly low such that upholding it would cause injustice.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Alexander Jo Okello v M/S Kayondo & Co. Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Makula International LTD v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Another
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] IICB. 11
  • Kirya G. Mayimba v Yoshino Trading Co. Ltd (Taxation Appeal No. 08 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

M_s_Kituuma-Magala_&_Co._Advocates_v_Attorney_General_(Misc._Appeal_Taxation_Appeal_No._2617_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_304_(19_September_2025)
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.