Wakilii

Mulira and Another ( administrator of the estate of the late EMK Mulira) v Walakira (Tax Application No. Tribunal 8 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 245 · 2021 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated taxation appeals from costs awards made in a withdrawn civil suit and an interlocutory application
Decision
One taxation appeal partly allowed with instruction fees reduced; other taxation appeal dismissed with costs award maintained

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Held that where a civil suit is withdrawn before hearing, the taxing master has discretion to reduce instruction fees below the statutory schedule to reflect the extent of work actually done. An instruction fee award that fails to account for the withdrawn status of the suit is excessive. The instruction fee in the withdrawn suit was reduced from UGX 16,000,000 to UGX 8,000,000 to reflect proportionality. The instruction fee of UGX 4,000,000 in the interlocutory application that proceeded to conclusion was maintained as not excessive.

Outcome

One taxation appeal partly allowed with instruction fees reduced; other taxation appeal dismissed with costs award maintained

Facts

The appellants, suing as administrators of an estate, filed a civil suit for recovery of land valued at UGX 500,000,000, eviction, injunction, general damages and costs against the respondent. They also filed an interlocutory application which was determined in favour of the respondent. The appellants withdrew the civil suit under Order 25 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules before it proceeded to hearing, with costs. The taxing master taxed and allowed instruction fees of UGX 16,000,000 in the withdrawn suit and UGX 4,000,000 in the interlocutory application. The appellants appealed both taxation awards under section 62 of the Advocates Act, contending the costs were excessive and unconscionable. The respondent opposed the appeals, arguing the awards were fair given the subject matter value of UGX 500,000,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxation award of instruction fees of UGX 16,000,000 in Civil Suit No. 019 of 2020 was excessive.
  2. Whether the taxation award of instruction fees of UGX 4,000,000 in Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2020 was excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal No. 08 of 2020 partly allowed.
  • Appeal No. 09 of 2020 dismissed.
  • Costs taxed and allowed in Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2020 wholly maintained.
  • Instruction fees in Civil Suit No. 019 of 2020 reduced from UGX 16,000,000 to UGX 8,000,000.
  • No order as to costs of the appeals.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Withdrawn Suits — Discretion of Taxing Master
Where a civil suit is withdrawn before hearing, the taxing master has discretion to reduce instruction fees below the amount specified in the statutory schedule to reflect the extent of work actually done by counsel, even where the schedule provides a specific fee based on the value of the subject matter.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Assessment Principles — Proportionality
An instruction fee is manifestly excessive if it is out of proportion with the value and importance of the suit and the work actually involved. Where a suit is withdrawn, awarding the full statutory instruction fee based on subject matter value alone, without considering the limited work done, is unjustified and excessive.
Taxation Appeals — Standard of Review — Judicial Deference to Taxing Officer
Save in exceptional cases, a judge on taxation appeal should not interfere with the assessment of what the taxing officer considers to be a reasonable fee. Questions solely of quantum of costs are matters with which the taxing officer is particularly fitted to deal and in which the taxing officer has more experience than the judge.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Interlocutory Applications Heard to Conclusion
Where an interlocutory application proceeds to hearing and is determined on its merits, an instruction fee substantially above the statutory minimum is not excessive, provided it is proportionate to the value, complexity and work involved.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (11)

  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Services Ltd (Civil Reference No. 13 of 2005)
  • CC Chadran v Kengrow Industries Ltd (Civil Application No. 22 of 2002)
  • Airtel (U) Limited v Kasonzi Martin (Taxation Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Thomas James Arthur v. Nyeri Electricity Undertaking, [1961] EA 492
  • Alexander Okello v M/s Kayondo & Company Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Nabanja v Nabukalu (Taxation Appeal No. 4 of 2018)
  • Makumbi and another v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd [1990-1994] 1 EA 306
  • Mayers and another versus Hamilton and others [1975] 1 EA at page 13
  • Lion Insurance Company Ltd v Kasekende Kyeyune & Lutaya Advocates (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 358 of 2013)
  • Ellingsen v. Det Skandinaviske Compani, [1919] 2 K.B. 567

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mulira and Another ( administrator of the estate of the late EMK Mulira) v Walakira (Tax Application No. Tribunal 8 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 245 (20 May 2021)
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.