Wakilii

Mbabali v Kiwanuka Sekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012)

Constitutional Court · [2019] UGCC 1 · 2019 Reference Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single judge of the Constitutional Court against a taxation decision of the Registrar
Decision
Reference partly allowed; respondent's taxed bill of costs reduced from shs.29,940,440 to shs.3,061,500.

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 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

On a reference against a taxation decision, the court held the taxing master was entitled to proceed ex parte under Rule 8 of the Third Schedule because an affidavit of service showed the petitioner's advocates had been notified; that ground failed. On the second ground, the court held the bill was manifestly excessive: the instruction fee of shs.15,000,000 would confine constitutional litigation to the wealthy, items claimed exceeded the scale, and disbursements lacked receipts contrary to Rule 4. The taxed bill was reduced from shs.29,940,440 to shs.3,061,500.

Outcome

Reference partly allowed; respondent's taxed bill of costs reduced from shs.29,940,440 to shs.3,061,500.

Facts

The Registrar of the Constitutional Court taxed and allowed the respondent's bill of costs at shs.29,940,440 on 26 February 2015, following constitutional proceedings between the parties. The taxation proceeded ex parte after the petitioner, though served, failed to appear. When execution was initiated against him, the petitioner sought and obtained leave to file a reference out of time. The petitioner challenged the taxation on two grounds: that it proceeded in his absence without notice, and that the sum allowed was manifestly excessive. The respondent had claimed shs.850,000,000 as instruction fees, which the taxing master reduced to shs.15,000,000. The record contained an affidavit of service on the petitioner's advocates notifying them of the taxation date, and no receipts were produced for the disbursements claimed.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxation should be set aside on the ground that it proceeded ex parte in the absence of the petitioner.
  2. Whether the bill of costs as taxed and allowed by the Registrar was manifestly excessive.

Orders

  • Ground one of the reference (ex parte taxation) dismissed.
  • Ground two of the reference (manifestly excessive award) allowed.
  • Respondent's bill of costs allowed at the reduced sum of shs.3,061,500.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Ex parte taxation where party served fails to appear
A taxing master is entitled to proceed ex parte under Rule 8 of the Third Schedule to the Rules of the Court of Appeal where a party who was duly notified of the taxation date fails to attend; the proper remedy for such a party is to apply to set aside the taxation order before the registrar, not merely to assert non-service on reference.
Costs — Taxation — Reference to a judge — Scope of inquiry
On a reference contending that a bill of costs is manifestly excessive, the requirement that grounds of appeal specify the items objected to does not apply; the court examines the bill, the taxation proceeding and the ruling to determine whether any items claimed are manifestly excessive.
Costs — Taxation — Instruction fees — Access to justice
In assessing instruction fees a taxing officer must ensure costs do not rise to a level that denies the poor access to court; an award that would leave only the wealthy able to litigate before the Constitutional Court is manifestly excessive, particularly where the matter is neither difficult nor complex.
Costs — Taxation — Disbursements — Requirement of receipts
Under Rule 4 of the Third Schedule, no disbursement may be allowed unless receipts are produced to the taxing officer at the time of taxation; where no receipts are produced, no item for disbursements ought to be allowed.
Costs — Taxation — Drawing the bill — Effect of deduction exceeding a quarter of profit costs
Under Rule 13 of the Third Schedule, where more than a quarter of the profit costs is deducted from the bill, the successful party loses the right to claim sums related to the drawing of the bill of costs.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Rules of the Court of Appeal rule 110(3)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal, Third Schedule, Rule 4
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal, Third Schedule, Rule 8
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal, Third Schedule, Rule 9(2)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal, Third Schedule, Rule 13

Cases cited (11)

  • Attorney General v Florine Barlene (Civil Application No. 79 of 2003)
  • Paul Kawanga Semwogerere vy Attorney General
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & Others [1972] EA 162
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espaniol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Akisoferi Ogola v Akika Othieno & Another (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1999)
  • Makumbi v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd [1990-1994] 1 EA 306
  • Lanyero Sarah Ochieng & Anor v Lanyero Molly (Civil Reference No. 225 of 2013)
  • Nalumansi v Lule (Civil Application No. 12 of 1992)
  • Hashjam v Zanab [1957] EA 255
  • Kabanda v Kananura Melvin Consulting Engineers (Civil Application No. 24 of 1993)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Mbabali v Kiwanuka Sekandi (Constitutional Petition No. 28 of 2012) [2019] UGCC 1 (8 February 2019)
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.