Mugisha v Kajara and 2 Others (Taxation Reference 313 of 2019)

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.

Holding

The applicant challenged a taxed bill of costs, contending that costs were wrongly awarded to advocates lacking valid practicing certificates and that the instruction fee was manifestly excessive. The single Justice held that the advocates in personal conduct of the appeal held valid practicing certificates, so the taxing officer properly awarded costs and an innocent party should not be penalised. However, because the election petition appeal had been struck out before hearing for late filing of the notice of appeal, little work was done; the UGX 14,000,000 instruction fee was manifestly excessive and was reduced to UGX 5,000,000, with transport and disbursements reduced to UGX 1,709,000. The reference succeeded on quantum.

Outcome

Taxation reference succeeded on quantum; instruction fees reduced from UGX 14,000,000 to UGX 5,000,000 and disbursements to UGX 1,709,000, for a total of UGX 6,709,000

Facts

The applicant, Vincent Mugisha, was dissatisfied with a bill of costs taxed by Her Worship Agnes Nkonge, the taxing officer, following Election Petition Appeal No. 24 of 2016. That appeal had been struck out because the notice of appeal was served out of time, so it was not argued to a conclusion. The taxing officer awarded the respondents' advocates UGX 14,000,000 as instruction fees and UGX 2,509,000 as attendance and disbursements. The applicant contended that the advocate who handled the related petition in the High Court (Mr. Businge A. Victor) did not hold a valid practicing certificate, and that the instruction fee was manifestly excessive given the limited work done. On the appeal, the advocates in personal conduct, Mr. Cosma A. Kateeba and Mr. Boniface Ngaruye Ruhindi, held valid practicing certificates at the material time.

Issues

1. Whether the taxing officer erred in awarding costs to advocates who allegedly did not possess valid practicing certificates at the relevant time.
2. Whether the instruction fee of UGX 14,000,000 awarded by the taxing officer was manifestly excessive.
3. Whether the taxation reference, having been filed out of time under Rule 110(5), could be entertained on its merits.

Orders

• The taxing officer's award of instruction fees of UGX 14,000,000 is set aside.
• The instruction fees are set at UGX 5,000,000.
• Transport and disbursement are set at UGX 1,709,000.
• The total taxed costs are UGX 6,709,000.
• Each party shall bear their own costs of the taxation reference.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Advocates Act Cap 267 s.69
• Advocates Act Cap 267 s.15
• Court of Appeal Rules r.110(1)
• Court of Appeal Rules r.110(3)
• Court of Appeal Rules r.110(5)
• Court of Appeal Rules Third Schedule paragraph 9
• Court of Appeal Rules Third Schedule paragraph 2

Cases cited (8)

• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
• Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
• Thomas James Arthur v Nyero Electricity Undertaking [1961] EA 492
• Lanyero & Another v Lanyero (Reference No. 255 of 2013)
• Brenda Nabukenya v Rebecca Nalwoga Balwana (Taxation Reference No. 208 of 2014)
• Prof. Syed Huq v Islamic University in Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1995)
• Patrick Makumbi & Anor v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
• Bank of Uganda v Sudhir Ruparelia & Meera Investments Ltd (Supreme Court Taxation Reference No. 0001 of 2023)

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