Wakilii

Magezi v National Medical Stores (Taxation Reference 1 of 2015)

East African Court of Justice · [2017] EACJ 93 · 2017 Taxation Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation reference challenging the Deputy Registrar's taxation ruling on a bill of costs
Decision
Taxation Reference dismissed with costs to the Respondent

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 Court dismissed the taxation reference, holding that the issue of alleged illegality in procurement of counsel's services could not be determined at the taxation reference stage without proper pleadings and fair hearing, and that the Taxing Officer did not err in law or principle in awarding instruction fees of USD 14,160 and USD 28,669.49 for drawings, perusals, attendances and disbursements.

Outcome

Taxation Reference dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The Applicant filed Reference No. 5 of 2013 against the Attorney General of Uganda, impleading National Medical Stores and others as interested parties. After the interested parties filed responses, the Applicant withdrew the matter against them without a written agreement on costs. National Medical Stores and Quality Chemical Industries Ltd filed consolidated applications seeking costs, which were granted on 19th June 2014. National Medical Stores filed a bill of costs totalling USD 257,643.97. During the taxation hearing on 13th May 2015, the Applicant's counsel objected that the Respondent's counsel had been procured in breach of Uganda's public procurement laws. The Deputy Registrar, acting as Taxing Officer, overruled the objection and on 7th September 2015 awarded USD 42,829.49 (USD 14,160 for instruction fees and USD 28,669.49 for drawings, perusals, attendances and disbursements). The Applicant filed this taxation reference challenging the award as manifestly excessive and illegal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxation Ruling delivered by the Taxing Officer on 7th September 2015 amounts to an illegality for alleged breach of public procurement rules of the Republic of Uganda by the Respondent in instructing its counsel.
  2. Whether the Court has justification to interfere with the Taxing Officer's Ruling rendered on 7th September 2015.

Orders

  • Taxation Reference dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent to be borne by the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Jurisdiction of Taxing Officer — Scope of Review
A taxing officer in taxation proceedings can only decide the amount of costs payable under a costs order already made by the court, but cannot vary the costs order itself or determine issues beyond the quantum of costs.
Taxation Reference — Grounds for Interference with Taxing Officer's Award
A court will interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of costs only in exceptional cases where it is shown that the taxing officer applied a wrong principle, which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low, and only if the error substantially affected the decision on quantum and would cause injustice to one of the parties.
Taxation of Costs — Raising New Issues at Taxation Stage — Fair Hearing
An issue of alleged illegality in the procurement of counsel's services cannot be determined for the first time at the taxation reference stage without proper pleadings having been filed to give the affected party fair notice and an opportunity to respond, as the requirement of fair hearing is a fundamental principle that courts must uphold.
Public Procurement — Timing of Objections — Proper Forum
Where a party seeks to challenge the procurement of opposing counsel's services as contrary to public procurement laws, such objection should be raised before the court that issued the costs order, not for the first time during taxation proceedings or on a taxation reference, and must be supported by proper pleadings and evidence.
Taxation of Costs — Assessment of Instruction Fees — Discretion of Taxing Officer
In assessing instruction fees, a taxing officer must exercise discretion judicially by considering the volume of work done, the stage at which the matter concluded, the time spent, the responsibility attributable to the advocates, and consistency with previous awards, and a court will not interfere with such assessment merely because it would have awarded a different amount.

Legislation cited (22)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 114
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 84(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 84(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 112(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 113(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 17
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 9
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 11
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act (Uganda) s.2
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act (Uganda) s.3
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act (Uganda) s.58
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act (Uganda) s.79(3)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Regulations (Uganda) No. 70 of 2003 Regulation 233(1)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Regulations (Uganda) No. 70 of 2003 Regulation 233(2)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Regulations (Uganda) No. 70 of 2003 Regulation 289
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Regulations (Uganda) No. 70 of 2003 Regulation 289(4)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Regulations (Uganda) No. 70 of 2003 Regulation 143(3)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Regulations (Uganda) No. 70 of 2003 Regulation 143(6)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Regulations (Uganda) No. 70 of 2003 Regulation 143(7)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 28(1)
  • Evidence Act (Uganda) Cap. 6 s.101
  • Evidence Act (Uganda) Cap. 6 s.103

Cases cited (25)

  • Attorney General & Hon. Peter Nyombi v Uganda Law Society (Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 2012)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Others [1982] HCB
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blankets Manufacturers (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Paul Kawanga Ssemwogerere & Others v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2001)
  • Lumweno & Co. Advocates v TransAfrica Assurance Company Ltd (Civil Application No. 0095 of 2004)
  • Shumuk Investments Ltd v Noble Builders (U) Ltd & Others (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2012)
  • Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd [1972] EA 162
  • Electoral Commission, Hon. Kirunda Kiveninja Vs. Hon. Abdu Katuntu
  • Karia & Another v The Attorney General & Others [2005] 1 EA 83
  • Charles Harry Twagira v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2003)
  • Mohammed Mohammed Hamid v Roko Construction Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
  • Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty Bakireke (Supreme Court Election Appeal No. 4 of 2009)
  • R v Rowe, ex parte Mainwaring and others [1992] 4 All ER 821
  • Campbell v Hamlet [2005] All ER 1116
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Paul Ssemogerere and Zachary Olum v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 5 of 2001)
  • Kenya Ports Authority v Modern Holdings Ltd (EACJ Reference No. 4 of 2010)
  • The Attorney General of Kenya v Prof. Peter Anyang' Onyong'o & Others (EACJ Reference No. 5 of 2010)
  • Democratic Party & Mukasa Fred Mbidde v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (EACJ Reference No. 3 of 2013)
  • The Inspector General of Government v Godfrey Magezi (EACJ Taxation Reference No. 1 of 2016)
  • Hon. Sam Njuba v Hon. Sitenda Sebalu (EACJ Taxation No. 1 of 2013)
  • The Clerk of the National Assembly of Kenya v Prof. Anyang' Nyong'o & Others (EACJ Taxation Cause No. 3 of 2010)
  • Henry Kyarimpa v Attorney General of Uganda (EACJ Appellate Division Appeal No. 6 of 2014)
  • Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat & Anr. v Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 2284

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Magezi v National Medical Stores (Taxation Reference 1 of 2015) [2017] EACJ 93 (21 September 2017)
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.