Wakilii

Modern Holdings (EA) Limited v Kenya Ports Authority (Reference No. 1 of 2009)

East African Court of Justice · [2010] EACJ 6 · 2010 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Rule 114 to set aside Taxing Officer's ruling on bill of costs
Decision
Application to set aside Taxing Officer's ruling dismissed

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 declined to interfere with the Taxing Officer's assessment of instruction fees. Where a reference was dismissed on preliminary objection for want of jurisdiction without proceeding to merits, the Taxing Officer properly exercised discretion in awarding one-eighth of the claimed instruction fee. Courts will only interfere with a Taxing Officer's discretion on costs where wrong principles were applied or the award was manifestly inadequate, which was not established in this case.

Outcome

Application to set aside Taxing Officer's ruling dismissed

Facts

Kenya Ports Authority applied under Rule 114 to set aside a Taxing Officer's ruling dated 7 August 2009 on taxation of costs. The applicant sought higher instruction fees in its bill of costs dated 16 March 2009. The underlying reference (Reference No. 1 of 2008) had been dismissed on preliminary objection for want of jurisdiction without proceeding to merits. The Taxing Officer had awarded instruction fees at one-eighth of the amount claimed (USD 47,354.20). At hearing, counsel for the applicant abandoned all items except item 1 relating to instruction fees, arguing the award was inordinately low and that the Taxing Officer misdirected himself by applying the wrong sub-rule and failing to consider the nature and complexity of the matter.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in law in assessing the instruction fee at one-eighth of the amount claimed.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer applied the wrong sub-rule of Rule 9 of the Second Schedule.
  3. Whether the Taxing Officer exercised his discretion injudiciously in awarding costs.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Instruction Fees — Discretion of Taxing Officer
The allowance for instruction fees is a matter peculiarly within the Taxing Officer's discretion and courts are reluctant to interfere with that discretion unless it has been exercised injudiciously or the Taxing Officer has acted upon wrong principles or applied wrong considerations in coming to his decision.
Costs — Assessment — References Dismissed on Preliminary Objection
Where a reference is dismissed on preliminary objection for want of jurisdiction without proceeding to merits, the assessment of instruction fees cannot be based on the full amount claimed but should reflect the limited nature of the proceedings actually conducted.
Costs — Policy Considerations — Access to Justice
Costs should not be allowed to rise to such a level as to confine access to courts to the wealthy, and the successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed for the costs incurred.

Legislation cited (3)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 114
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Second Schedule Rule 9(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Second Schedule Rule 9(2)

Cases cited (7)

  • Jareth Limited v Kigano & Associates (Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1999)
  • Hotel Travertine Ltd v National Bank of Commerce (Taxation Civil Reference No. 9 of 2006)
  • Attorney General v Amos Shavu (Taxation Reference No. 2 of 2000)
  • Rahim Hasham v Alibhai Kadershai (1938) 1 TLR (R) 676
  • Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd [1972] EA 162
  • Rogan-Kamper v Lord Grosvenor (No. 3) [1976-80] KLR 665
  • Devshi Dhanji and Others v Kanji Naran Patel and Others (No. 2) [1976-80] KLR 1024

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Modern Holdings (EA) Limited v Kenya Ports Authority (Reference No. 1 of 2009) [2010] EACJ 6 (15 January 2010)
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.