Wakilii

Mutegeki v Tibakunirwa (Taxation Appeal 6 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 295 · 2022 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of costs following dismissal of Election Petition No. 013 of 2021
Decision
Appeal partly allowed with costs reduced from UGX 53,460,000 to UGX 43,533,700

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 High Court partly allowed an appeal from taxation of costs in an election petition. The court held that instruction fees of UGX 30,000,000 were fair and reasonable under Schedule 6 Rule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, but reduced several disbursement items as excessive or unsupported by evidence. The total taxed costs were reduced from UGX 53,460,000 to UGX 43,533,700.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed with costs reduced from UGX 53,460,000 to UGX 43,533,700

Facts

The appellant lost Election Petition No. 013 of 2021, which was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent. The respondent filed a bill of costs that was taxed and allowed at UGX 53,460,000 on 9 February 2022. The appellant appealed the taxation, challenging instruction fees of UGX 30,000,000 as excessive, costs for two counsel where no certificate was awarded, and various disbursement items totalling UGX 12,000,000 as unjustified. The respondent opposed the appeal, arguing that the taxing officer properly considered the complexity of the election petition and that he had incurred expenses exceeding the amounts awarded.

Issues

  1. Whether the summons served by the appellant had expired.
  2. Whether the taxation was conducted in accordance with the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.

Orders

  • The award made by the Assistant Registrar of UGX 53,460,000 is set aside.
  • A final award of UGX 43,533,700 is granted as the taxed costs in Election Petition No. 013 of 2021.
  • The appeal partly succeeds.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Appellate Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion
Save in exceptional cases, a judge should not interfere with the assessment of what the taxing officer considers to be a reasonable fee, as questions of quantum of costs are matters with which the taxing officer is particularly fitted to deal and in which he has more experience than the judge.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Exceptional Cases Justifying Appellate Interference
An exceptional case justifying appellate interference is where it is shown expressly or by inference that in assessing and arriving at the quantum of the fee allowed, the taxing officer exercised or applied a wrong principle, which can be inferred from an award of an amount which is manifestly excessive or manifestly low.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Strict Compliance with Remuneration Rules
Under the current legal framework, where parties are represented by advocates, the taxing master must conduct the taxation of a bill of costs in strict compliance with the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations as amended in 2018, and any taxation conducted contrary to the remuneration rules should be corrected and aligned in accordance with the prevailing remuneration rules.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Instruction Fees under Local Governments Act
For instructions to present or oppose an election petition under the Local Governments Act, the fee shall not be less than UGX 5,000,000, and the taxing officer has discretion to award any amount above that minimum taking into account the nature, importance, complexity and novelty of the petition, the place where and circumstances in which work was done, the time expended, the public interest and all other relevant circumstances.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees Include Perusals
Unless otherwise provided in the scale, the instruction fee allowed under items 1 to 10 of Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations shall include all the work necessarily and properly done in connection with the case which is not otherwise chargeable, including perusals.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Disbursements Require Evidence
Where a party claims disbursements for transport, accommodation, feeding and facilitation not provided for under the Remuneration Rules, such costs must be supported by evidence of actual expenditure through receipts or other documentation, and in the absence of such evidence the taxing officer or court on appeal may reduce the amount to what is fair, reasonable and proportionate.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (10)

  • 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
  • Gulu Institute of Health Science v Bwomu Gerald (High Court Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2016)
  • Administrators of the Estate of the Late Barbara Lakeli v JWB Kiwanuka & 3 Others (Taxation Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
  • Makumbi and Another v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd [1990-1994] 1 EA 306
  • Obiga Kania v Wadri Kassiano Ezati and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Reference No. 32 of 2004)
  • Lanyero Sarah Ocheng & Another v Lanyero Molly (Court of Appeal Reference No. 225 of 2013)
  • Dr Isamat Abraham v Dr Epetait Francis (Miscellaneous Application No. 43 of 2015)
  • Electoral Commission & Another v Hon Abdu Katuntu (High Court Miscellaneous Appeals No. 1 of 2009 and 2 of 2010)
  • Brenda Nabukenya v Rebecca Nalwanga Balwana (Taxation Reference No. 7 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mutegeki v Tibakunirwa (Taxation Appeal 6 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 295 (31 October 2022)
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.