Wakilii

Magezi v National Medical Stores (Taxation Reference No.1 of 2015)

East African Court of Justice · [2017] EACJ 121 · 2017 Application 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; Taxing Officer's ruling 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 Court held that the issue of alleged illegality in the procurement of the Respondent's counsel could not be determined at the taxation reference stage, as it should have been raised through formal pleadings before the court that issued the costs order, to ensure fair hearing. The Court further held 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, as the award was not manifestly excessive and was consistent with established principles of taxation of costs.

Outcome

Taxation reference dismissed; Taxing Officer's ruling upheld.

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 serving notices of withdrawal, National Medical Stores and Quality Chemical Industries Ltd filed consolidated applications stating that withdrawal was without written agreement on costs. On 19 June 2014, the Court ruled that National Medical Stores and Quality Chemical Industries Ltd were entitled to costs. National Medical Stores filed a bill of costs totalling USD 257,643.97. A taxation hearing was held on 13 May 2015, and on 7 September 2015, the Deputy Registrar awarded USD 42,829.49 to National Medical Stores (USD 14,160 for instruction fees and USD 28,669.49 for drawings, perusals, attendances and disbursements). The Applicant filed this taxation reference on 22 September 2015, challenging the award as manifestly excessive and alleging illegality in the procurement of the Respondent's counsel. The Appellate Division of the Court later validated the late filing of the reference and ordered its hearing on the merits.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxation Ruling delivered by the Taxing Officer on 7 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, M/S Kiwanuka & Karugire Advocates.
  2. Whether this Court has justification to interfere with the Taxing Officer's Ruling rendered on 7 September 2015.

Orders

  • The Taxation Reference is dismissed.
  • Costs of the reference awarded to the Respondent to be borne by the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Jurisdiction of Taxing Officer — Scope of Review on Taxation Reference
A taxing officer in taxation proceedings can only decide the amount of costs payable under a costs order but cannot vary the costs order already made. If a party is dissatisfied with the costs order itself, it should appeal rather than raising objections during taxation.
Taxation of Costs — Grounds for Interference with Taxing Officer's Award
A court will interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of costs only in exceptional cases, namely where the award is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate, where there has been a misdirection, or where the award has been arrived at on wrong principles. An error of principle may be inferred where an award is manifestly excessive.
Public Procurement — Timing and Manner of Raising Procurement Irregularity — Fair Hearing
An allegation of breach of public procurement rules in the instruction of counsel is a grave matter that cannot be determined on a taxation reference without formal pleadings and a fair opportunity for the affected party to respond. Such an issue should be raised through proper pleadings before the court that issued the costs order, not belatedly at the taxation stage or on taxation reference.
Taxation of Costs — Assessment of Instruction Fees — Discretion of Taxing Officer
In assessing instruction fees, the taxing officer must exercise discretion judicially, taking into account the volume of work done, the time spent, the responsibility attributable to the advocates, the importance of the matter, and consistency with previous awards. Where the taxing officer has properly considered these factors, a court will not interfere merely because it might 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)
  • Evidence Act (Uganda) Cap. 6 s.101
  • Evidence Act (Uganda) Cap. 6 s.103
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 28(1)

Cases cited (25)

  • Attorney General & Hon. Peter Nyombi v Uganda Law Society (Misc. 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 (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 (SCAA No. 27 of 2003)
  • Mohammed Mohammed Hamid v Roko Construction Limited (SCCA 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 (SCC Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Paul Ssemogerere and Zachary Olum v Attorney General (SCC Application No. 5 of 2001)
  • Kenya Ports Authority v Modern Holdings Ltd (Reference No. 4 of 2010)
  • The Attorney General of Kenya v Prof. Peter Anyang' Onyong'o & Others (Reference No. 5 of 2010)
  • Democratic Party & Mukasa Fred Mbidde v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Reference No. 3 of 2013)
  • The Inspector General of Government v Godfrey Magezi (Taxation Reference No. 1 of 2016)
  • Hon. Sam Njuba v Hon. Sitenda Sebalu (Taxation No. 1 of 2013)
  • The Clerk of the National Assembly of Kenya v Prof. Anyang' Nyong'o & Others (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 No.1 of 2015) [2017] EACJ 121 (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.