Wakilii

Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (Civil Appeal 4 of 1981)

Court of Appeal · [1982] UGCA 2 · 1982 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a decision of the High Court dismissing an appeal against a taxing officer's award of costs
Decision
Appeal allowed; taxation of the instruction fee remitted to the taxing officer for reassessment on correct principles

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 of Appeal held it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the High Court's decision resulted in an order and no legislation excluded the ordinary right of appeal. On the merits, the Court held that a court cannot sanction an illegality once brought to its attention, and that the taxing officer's assessment of the instruction fee, based on an inflated valuation of the suit and ignoring the prescribed scale under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules, was made on wrong principles. The Court assessed the value of the suit itself and remitted the matter for reassessment of the instruction fee on correct principles.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; taxation of the instruction fee remitted to the taxing officer for reassessment on correct principles

Facts

The appellant filed a suit against the two respondents seeking specific performance of a contract to supply goods or, alternatively, general damages for breach, valuing the suit at Shs. 11,975,000/-. The suit was struck out. On taxation of costs, the taxing officer assessed the instruction fee by reference to the value of the suit as pleaded, arriving at a figure the appellant considered excessive. The appellant challenged the taxation through references and appeals within the High Court. When the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, the respondent raised preliminary objections, including that the Court lacked jurisdiction and that the appeal was time-barred. The taxing officer's assessment was said to have relied on an inflated instruction figure derived from the pleaded value rather than the true value of the subject matter, and to have ignored the scale prescribed under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a High Court decision made on appeal from a taxing officer under section 61(1) of the Advocates Act.
  2. Whether the appeal to the High Court was filed within the prescribed time under section 61(1) of the Advocates Act.
  3. Whether an illegality once brought to the attention of the court may be ignored.
  4. Whether the taxing officer and the High Court correctly assessed the instruction fee and value of the suit for the purpose of taxation of costs.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection on jurisdiction rejected; the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
  • The value of the suit determined at Shs. 7,000,000/-.
  • The taxation of the instruction fee remitted to the taxing officer for reassessment on correct principles.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant, including costs for two counsel.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Jurisdiction — Right of appeal from High Court decision resulting in an order
Where a High Court decision on an appeal from an extra-judicial authority results in an order, an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal under the general provisions governing appeals unless the ordinary right of appeal is expressly excluded by special legislation.
Civil Procedure — Illegality — Court's duty not to sanction an illegality
A court cannot sanction what is illegal, and an illegality once brought to the attention of the court overrides all questions of pleading, including admissions made thereon.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction fee — Assessment on correct principles and prescribed scale
In taxing an instruction fee, the taxing officer must apply the scale prescribed by the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules by reference to the true value of the subject matter of the suit, and an assessment based on an inflated valuation or ignoring the prescribed scale is made on wrong principles and liable to be set aside.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Guiding principles on taxation
Costs on taxation should not be pitched so high as to confine access to justice to the wealthy, a successful litigant should be fairly reimbursed costs reasonably incurred, the general level of remuneration must be sufficient to attract advocates to the profession, and consistency should be maintained.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (11)

  • National Telephone Company v: Post Master General [1913] A.C. 546
  • Sheikh Noordin Gulmohamed v: Sheikh Brothers Ltd. [195?] E.A.
  • Cawasjee Dinshaw Bros. (Aden) v. Cawasjee's Staff Association [1961] E.A. 436
  • East African Railways and Harbours v Nairobi City Council [1970] E.A. 33
  • Mityana Ginners Ltd. v. Public Health Officer [195?] E.A. 339
  • House Ltd. v. Wilkinson
  • Collector for the Western Uganda E.A. 484
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa [1972] E.A. 162
  • Souza Figueiredo & Co Ltd v Moorings Hotel Co Ltd (Barclays Bank) [1959]
  • Belvoir [1962] 2 All E.R. 90
  • Phillips L.J.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (Civil Appeal 4 of 1981) [1982] UGCA 2 (8 April 1982)
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.