Wakilii

Makumbi v Sole Electrics (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)

High Court · [1995] UGHC 69 · 1995 Reference Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference from decision of the Taxing Master under Rule 109(2) of the Rules of Court concerning taxation of costs
Decision
Reference allowed in part with instruction fee reduced from Shs. 12 million to Shs. 2 million and CTL award set aside pending proof of payment

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 3 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 3 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations steady — 11 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 reduced the instruction fee from Shs. 12 million to Shs. 2 million as manifestly excessive, given that the appeal was on an interlocutory order and was conceded within minutes on a straightforward point of law. The court set aside the award of commercial transaction levy of Shs. 1,800,000 because it had not been paid at the time of taxation and no receipts were produced. The court held that CTL can only be awarded as a disbursement upon proof of payment.

Outcome

Reference allowed in part with instruction fee reduced from Shs. 12 million to Shs. 2 million and CTL award set aside pending proof of payment

Facts

The respondent company was a tenant of Kampala City Council property on Plot No. 5A Nasser Road, Kampala. When the Council advertised the property for sale by tender in 1991, the second applicant was declared the successful bidder. The respondent challenged the tender award, alleging collusion between the first applicant (Kampala City Council Town Clerk) and the second applicant. The respondent filed a High Court suit seeking to set aside the sale. The second applicant applied to strike out the plaint under Order 6 Rule 29, which succeeded in part. The respondent appealed to the High Court. Counsel for the applicants conceded the appeal on the basis that the trial judge had decided on a point not raised by them. The appeal was allowed with costs to the respondent. The Taxing Master awarded costs of Shs. 13,854,000 including instruction fees of Shs. 12,000,000 and commercial transaction levy of Shs. 1,800,000. The applicants referred the taxation to a single judge under Rule 109(2).

Issues

  1. Whether the instruction fee of Shs. 12,000,000 awarded by the Taxing Master was manifestly excessive.
  2. Whether the Taxing Master erred in awarding commercial transaction levy of Shs. 1,800,000 before the tax had been paid.
  3. Whether the Taxing Master should have considered the financial status of the first applicant in awarding costs.

Orders

  • Reference allowed in part.
  • Instruction fee reduced from Shs. 12,000,000 to Shs. 2,000,000.
  • Award of Shs. 1,800,000 as commercial transaction levy set aside.
  • Item of commercial transaction levy may be presented again for taxation at an appropriate time upon proof of payment.
  • Applicants awarded three-quarters of the costs of the reference.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Assessment on Interlocutory Appeals
Where an appeal on an interlocutory order is conceded within minutes on a straightforward point of law, an instruction fee must reflect the limited work actually performed and the early resolution of the matter, not the potential value of the property that was the subject of the underlying dispute.
Taxation of Costs — Commercial Transaction Levy — Proof of Payment Required
Commercial transaction levy can only be awarded to an advocate as a disbursement upon proof of payment. If the CTL has not been paid at the time of taxation, taxation of that item should be deferred until the CTL is paid and receipts issued.
Taxation of Costs — Review by Appellate Court — Manifestly Excessive Awards
An appellate court will not interfere with an assessment of costs by a Taxing Master unless the Master has misdirected himself on a matter of principle, but if the quantum of an assessment is manifestly extravagant, a misdirection of principle may be a necessary inference.
Taxation of Costs — Financial Status of Paying Party — Irrelevant Consideration
A Taxing Master is not entitled to take into account the financial status of the party ordered to pay costs in the absence of evidence proving incapacity to pay. It is trite law that a successful party should have the costs of the case; whether or not the costs will be recovered is another matter.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Principles Governing Assessment
There is no mathematical or magic formula for arriving at a precise instruction fee. Each case must be decided on its own merit and circumstances. A lengthy or complicated case involving lengthy preparations and research will attract high fees. The Taxing Master has discretion but must exercise it judicially and not whimsically.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and Others [1972] E.A. 162
  • Nalumansi v Sulaimani Lule (Civil Application No. 12 of 1992)
  • Khatijabai Jiva Hashiam v Zenati [1957] E.A. 255
  • Connie Kabanda v Kananura Melvin Consulting Engineers (Civil Application No. 24 of 1993)
  • Steel Construction and Petroleum Engineering (E.A) Ltd v Uganda Electricity Board [1970] E.A. 141
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)

Cases citing this judgment (8)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Makumbi v Sole Electrics (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994) [1995] UGHC 69 (1 January 1995)
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.