Wakilii

Muwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General (Civil Reference 38 of 2017)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 33 · 2018 Application Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single Justice under rule 109 of the Supreme Court Rules from the Registrar's taxation of instruction fees on a bill of costs.
Decision
Reference allowed; taxing officer's instruction-fee award of UGX 6,000,000 substituted with UGX 80,000,000.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

On a taxation reference under rule 109, the single Justice held that the taxing officer's award of UGX 6,000,000 as instruction fees was manifestly low. The matter was of great public importance — the appellant having challenged the constitutionality of section 32 of the Police Act and protected freedoms of assembly — and involved substantial research and volume of work. The claimed UGX 100,000,000 was excessive, particularly as the fund bearing the costs was the national treasury and taxpayers. Applying para 9(2) of the Third Schedule and the principle that no magic formula governs taxation, the court substituted an award of UGX 80,000,000 as reasonable. The reference was allowed.

Outcome

Reference allowed; taxing officer's instruction-fee award of UGX 6,000,000 substituted with UGX 80,000,000.

Facts

The applicant had successfully challenged the constitutionality of section 32 of the Police Act before the Constitutional Court, which limited the Inspector General of Police's power to prohibit assemblies. On appeal to the Supreme Court the applicant secured an order for costs in that court and the courts below. On taxation of the resulting bill of costs, the Registrar, sitting as taxing officer, awarded UGX 6,000,000 as instruction fees. The applicant, contending that this sum was manifestly low and failed to reflect the case's public importance, contribution to jurisprudence, and the volume of research undertaken, referred the matter to a single Justice and sought enhancement of the award to UGX 100,000,000. The respondent supported the taxing officer's award, arguing no money was involved in the appeal and that the short interval between judgment and taxation negated any inflation argument.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer's award of UGX 6,000,000 as instruction fees was manifestly so low as to amount to a wrongful failure to exercise discretion judiciously.
  2. What sum is reasonable as instruction fees in the circumstances of the appeal.

Orders

  • The sum of 6 million as instruction fees is manifestly low and is substituted with 80,000,000/= (Eighty million shillings).
  • The application is allowed.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Reference to a Judge under rule 109
A reference on taxation may be made to a single Judge only on a matter of law or principle, or on the ground that the bill as taxed is in all circumstances manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate; save as so provided, there shall be no reference on a question of quantum only.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Assessment factors under para 9(2)
Instruction fees on appeal are such sum as the taxing officer considers reasonable having regard to the amount involved, the nature, importance and difficulty of the matter, the interest of the parties, the other costs allowed, the general conduct of the proceedings, the fund or persons to bear the costs, and all other relevant circumstances.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — No fixed formula — Consistency
There is no principle of law that a taxing officer's decision must be subjected to a magic formula yielding a precise figure automatically; every case is decided on its own merits and peculiar circumstances, and uniformity or consistency with earlier awards may at times be defeated by the differences between cases.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Public importance and the fund bearing costs
While a matter of great public importance and substantial volume of work justifies a higher instruction fee, the fund or person bearing the costs must be weighed; where the national treasury and taxpayers bear the costs, the award must strike a balance between keeping litigation affordable and adequately remunerating advocates.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Supreme Court Rules r.109
  • Supreme Court Rules Third Schedule para 9(2) and (3)
  • Police Act (Cap 303) s.32
  • Constitution of Uganda articles 20, 21, 29, 38, 42, 43

Cases cited (8)

  • Semogerere vs AG
  • Onyango Obbo vs AG
  • Lukyamuzi Ken vs AG
  • Ssekikubo vs AG
  • Attorney General V John Mark & anor
  • Nobie Builders (U) v Sietco (Civil Application No. 16 of 2000)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General (Civil Reference 38 of 2017) [2018] UGSC 33 (28 July 2018)
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.