Wakilii

Nabisaalu & Another v Mutumba & Another (Taxation Appeal 56 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 271 · 2024 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from ruling of taxing master on taxation application arising from costs award in miscellaneous application
Decision
Taxation ruling set aside; costs retaxed at UGX 13,068,000

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 the taxing master exceeded jurisdiction by taxing costs for Civil Suit No. 619 of 2019 when the court order only awarded costs for Miscellaneous Application No. 3380 of 2023. The taxing officer must remain within the four corners of the court's order. Further held that instruction fees for interlocutory applications must be based on reasonableness, not the value of the subject matter. The court retaxed the bill on the correct basis, allowing instruction fees totalling UGX 13,068,000. Appeal partly allowed.

Outcome

Taxation ruling set aside; costs retaxed at UGX 13,068,000

Facts

The appellants filed an application for addition of parties and amendment of pleadings in Civil Suit No. 619 of 2019. The respondents raised preliminary objections arguing the suit had abated or should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The High Court upheld the preliminary objections and dismissed the application with costs in Miscellaneous Application No. 3380 of 2023. The respondents then filed a taxation application. The taxing master taxed costs for Civil Suit No. 619 of 2019 and based instruction fees on the value of the suit land (UGX 1 billion). The appellants appealed, contending the taxing master exceeded jurisdiction by taxing costs for the suit when costs were only awarded for the miscellaneous application, and that instruction fees should be based on reasonableness, not land value.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing master correctly taxed a bill of costs for Civil Suit No. 619 of 2019 when costs had only been awarded in respect of Miscellaneous Application No. 3380 of 2023.
  2. Whether the taxing master erred in basing instruction fees on the value of the suit land rather than on what is reasonable for interlocutory applications.
  3. Whether the costs taxed were manifestly excessive and oppressive.

Orders

  • The decision and orders of the learned Taxing Master in taxation application No. 0139 of 2024 are set aside.
  • The respondents' costs for Miscellaneous Application No. 3380 of 2023 are taxed at a grand total of Shs. 13,068,000 (Thirteen Million, Sixty-Eight Thousand).
  • Each party shall bear its costs for this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Jurisdiction of Taxing Officer — Limits of Taxing Master's Authority
A taxing officer may not award or tax costs where no order for costs has been made by the court. The taxing officer's jurisdiction is limited to determining quantum by taxing bills of costs in accordance with applicable principles and regulations, where there is no dispute as to retainer or where costs have been duly awarded by court order. The taxation must remain within the four corners of the court's order.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees for Interlocutory Applications — Basis of Assessment
For interlocutory applications, instruction fees must be based on what is reasonable in the eyes of the taxing officer and not on the value of the subject matter or amount claimed in the main suit. The applicable regulation for interlocutory applications sets a minimum fee rather than a value-based scale.
Civil Procedure — Appeal from Taxing Master — Grounds for Judicial Interference
A judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of reasonable fees except in exceptional cases where it is shown, expressly or by inference, that the taxing officer exercised or applied a wrong principle. Even where error on principle is shown, the judge should interfere only if satisfied the error substantially affected the quantum and upholding the amount would cause injustice.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Retaxation by Judge on Appeal
The High Court has jurisdiction to retax a bill of costs and interfere with a decision of the taxing master where satisfied that the master made an error that substantially affected the quantum and upholding the amount would cause injustice to the parties.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, Sixth Schedule, Paragraph 9(2)
  • Advocates Act

Cases cited (6)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1999)
  • Byenkya Kihika & Co Advocates v Fang Min (HCMC No. 0052 of 2022)
  • Attorney General v Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Ors (Civil Reference No. 013 of 2016)
  • Bank of Uganda v Sudhir Ruparelia & Meera Investments (Supreme Court Taxation Reference No. 001 of 2023)
  • Muddu Awulira Enterprises Limited & Ors v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Taxation Reference No. 051 of 2019)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa [1972] EA 162

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabisaalu_&_Another_v_Mutumba_&_Another_(Taxation_Appeal_56_of_2024)_[2024]_UGHCLD_271_(15_November_2024)
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.