Wakilii

Meja Projects v Infrastructure Projects Limited (Taxation Appeal No. 29 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 252 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from Taxing Master's award of costs in underlying civil suit
Decision
Appeal dismissed; Taxing Master's award of UGX 46,344,709 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

Held that the Taxing Master acted within jurisdiction in re-taxing the bill of costs in the absence of counsel under Regulation 54 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules. The alleged consent taxation settlement was invalid as it had not been signed by counsel for the respondent and therefore could not bind the court. The court will not sanction exorbitant sums agreed between parties contrary to the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation Rules. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the Taxing Master applied a wrong principle or exercised discretion arbitrarily. Appeal dismissed and the Taxing Master's award of UGX 46,344,709 maintained.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; Taxing Master's award of UGX 46,344,709 upheld

Facts

The applicant sought to set aside the Taxing Master's award of UGX 46,344,709 as taxed costs in the underlying suit HCCS No. 2351/2016, seeking a higher award. The applicant claimed that counsel for both parties had held a pre-taxation meeting where they agreed on UGX 82,000,000 as the taxed costs, and a consent taxation settlement deed was drafted and signed by the applicant's counsel but not by the respondent's counsel. The matter was set down for ruling on 17 March 2021. The applicant contended that the Taxing Master erred in re-taxing the bill in the absence of both counsel without reference to the alleged agreement and without according them a hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Master erred in re-taxing the bill of costs when parties had allegedly reached consensus on the amount to be allowed.
  2. Whether the Taxing Master erred in conducting taxation in the absence of both counsel.
  3. Whether the Taxing Master misconstrued the value of the subject matter during taxation.
  4. Whether the court should interfere with the Taxing Master's exercise of discretion in awarding costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The award of costs by the Taxing Master is maintained.
  • The applicant shall bear the costs of this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Power of Taxing Master to Proceed Ex Parte
A Taxing Master has power under Regulation 54 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules to proceed with taxation of costs ex parte in default of appearance of either or both parties or their advocates.
Taxation of Costs — Consent Taxation Settlements — Validity and Enforceability
A consent taxation settlement takes on the characteristics of a contract and must be signed by all parties to be binding. Failure by one party's counsel to append signature means the consent cannot be relied upon as it is not legally binding.
Taxation of Costs — Court Not Bound by Exorbitant Consent
The court is not bound by consent of parties in a taxation of costs where the parties have agreed to exorbitant or exaggerated sums contrary to the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation Rules. The court should never sanction illegalities by mutual agreement of parties.
Appeals — Interference with Taxing Master's Discretion
An appellate court may only interfere with an award of costs by a Taxing Master if the costs are so low or so high that they amount to an injustice, or if the discretion was exercised in an arbitrary or illegal manner, or without due regard for all necessary considerations, or with regard to unnecessary factors, or in bad faith.
Taxation of Costs — Principles Governing Awards
The essence of costs is to compensate the successful party for part of the loss incurred in litigation. Costs cannot cure all financial loss sustained in litigation, are not meant to be a bonus to a successful party, and are not awarded on sentiments.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Paul Mugalu v Manjeri Nabukenya (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2003)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol [1999] 2 EALR 45
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor [1982] HCB 11
  • Alexander J Okello v Kayondo & Co Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Meja Projects v Infrastructure Projects Limited (Taxation Appeal No. 29 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 252 (30 November 2022)
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.