Muddu Awulira Enterprises Limited (MEAL) and 2 Others v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Taxation Reference 51 of 2019)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The applicants sought to set aside the Taxing Officer's award of UGX 6,000,000 instruction fees (against their claim of UGX 240,000,000) for successfully defending an interlocutory application for security for costs, arguing the fee was manifestly inadequate because the value of the subject matter was ignored. A single judge held that instruction fees in interlocutory applications are governed by paragraph 9(1) of the Third Schedule, which requires only that the fee be reasonable in the Taxing Officer's discretion, not by paragraph 9(2) (which applies to appeals and considers value of the subject matter). A judge will not interfere save in exceptional cases or where a wrong principle was applied. The Taxing Officer acted judiciously; the reference was dismissed.

Outcome

Taxation reference dismissed; the Taxing Officer's award of UGX 6,000,000 instruction fees upheld

Facts

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd had applied for security for past and future costs against the applicants in Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 67 of 2016, requiring them to deposit UGX 2,400,000,000 before their appeal could be heard. That application was dismissed with costs to the applicants. The applicants then filed a bill of costs claiming UGX 240,000,000 in instruction fees. The Taxing Officer rejected that figure as exorbitant for a routine application for security for costs and taxed it down to UGX 6,000,000. The applicants brought this reference contending the award was manifestly inadequate because the Taxing Officer failed to consider the value of the subject matter, its nature, importance and complexity. The respondent argued the application was a routine interlocutory matter to which the value of the subject matter was irrelevant.

Issues

1. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle by failing to take the value of the subject matter into account when assessing instruction fees in an interlocutory application.
2. Whether the award of UGX 6,000,000 as instruction fees was manifestly inadequate in the circumstances.

Orders

• The taxation reference is dismissed.
• Costs of the taxation reference are awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules, SI 13-10, r.109
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules, SI 13-10, r.110(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules, SI 13-10, r.110(3)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules, Third Schedule (Taxation of Costs), para 9(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules, Third Schedule (Taxation of Costs), para 9(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules, Third Schedule (Taxation of Costs), para 12

Cases cited (7)

• Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Court of Appeal No. 17 of 1999)
• Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
• Haruna Mubiru and 3 Others v Nakato Busira and Another (CACR No. 147 of 2012)
• Uganda Revenue Authority v Shell (U) Ltd and 9 Others (Civil Application No. 17 of 2014)
• General Parts (U) Ltd v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2000)
• Bank of Uganda v Sudhir Ruparelia and Meera Investments Ltd (Supreme Court Taxation Reference No. 0001 of 2023)
• Premchand Raichand Ltd and Another v Quarry Services of East Africa (1972) EA 162

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Rwabatabazi Januario v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2021)

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