Wakilii

Multiple icd ltd v Kwesiga Bateyo & co advocates (Misc Appeal No. 122 of 2011)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 161 · 2014 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of Advocates' bill of costs by the Deputy Registrar
Decision
Appeal allowed. Instruction fees reduced to UGX 40,000,000.

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 after parties enter into a consent judgment, that judgment supersedes the original pleadings and becomes the new point of reference. A taxing master cannot revert to unproven pleadings to determine the subject matter value for assessment of instruction fees. The consent judgment in this case used containers as currency and did not specify a monetary value. The taxing master erred in relying on the UGX 12 billion claimed in the plaint. The instruction fees were reduced from UGX 121,187,500 to UGX 40,000,000.

Outcome

Appeal allowed. Instruction fees reduced to UGX 40,000,000.

Facts

Kwesiga Bateyo & Co Advocates acted as defence counsel for Multiple ICD Ltd in two suits (HCCS 147/2009 and CS 288/2009) in which J&M Airport Hotel sued for release of 30 containers valued at UGX 12 billion in the plaint. On 20 May 2010, the parties entered into a consent judgment settling both suits. The consent judgment did not specify a monetary value but used containers as the medium of settlement. The respondent firm ceased to act for the appellant and demanded payment of UGX 192,083,613 in legal fees. The matter proceeded to taxation. The Deputy Registrar (taxing master) awarded instruction fees of UGX 121,187,500 based on the UGX 12 billion claimed in the plaint. The appellant appealed, arguing that the taxing master erred by relying on the plaint after the parties had superseded it with a consent judgment that gave no monetary figure.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing master erred in awarding instruction fees of UGX 121,187,500 based on the value stated in the plaint after parties had entered into a consent judgment.
  2. Whether a taxing master may rely on pleadings to determine the subject matter value after parties have superseded those pleadings with a consent judgment.
  3. What is the proper basis for assessing instruction fees where a consent judgment does not specify a monetary value for the subject matter.

Orders

  • The award of instruction fees is reduced from UGX 121,187,500 to UGX 40,000,000.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Consent Judgments — Effect on Assessment of Instruction Fees
Where parties enter into a consent judgment, that judgment supersedes the original cause of action and pleadings, and becomes the new point of reference for all purposes. A taxing master cannot revert to pleadings to determine the subject matter value for assessment of instruction fees after parties have entered into a consent judgment.
Taxation of Costs — Assessment of Instruction Fees — Consent Judgment Without Monetary Value
Where a consent judgment does not state a monetary value for the subject matter but settles claims using other consideration (such as containers), and neither the consent judgment nor reliable evidence establishes the value, the court must determine a reasonable fee based on the nature and importance of the work actually done.
Taxation of Costs — Appellate Interference with Taxing Master's Assessment
An appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with a taxing master's assessment of quantum unless the taxing master has misdirected himself on a matter of principle. If the quantum is manifestly extravagant, a misdirection of principle may be inferred.
Consent Judgments — Nature and Effect
A consent judgment is raised upon a new contract between the parties which supersedes the original cause of action. Courts are bound by consent judgments and may only interfere with them on limited grounds: fraud, mistake, misinterpretation, or ignorance of material facts.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (9)

  • Nicholas Roussous v Gulam Hussein Habib (Supreme Court 1996)
  • Akisoferi Ogola v Akika & Another (Court of Appeal No. 18 of 1999)
  • Jaffer Brothers Ltd v DAPC Board (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1999)
  • Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electronics (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1999)
  • Steel Construction Engineering EA Ltd v Uganda Sugar Factory Ltd [1970] EA 141
  • Attorney General v James Kamoga & Kimala (Civil Application No. 2 of 2008)
  • Ismail S Hirani v Noorrali E Kassam (19 EACA 131)
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Attorney General & Hass Agencies Ltd (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2008)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Court of Appeal No. 8 of 1998)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Multiple icd ltd v Kwesiga Bateyo & co advocates (Misc Appeal No. 122 of 2011) [2014] UGHCCD 161 (27 June 2014)
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.