Wakilii

Nakabuye vKalule and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 85 · 2023 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation ruling of a bill of costs arising from Civil Suit No. 616 of 2007
Decision
Bill of costs remitted to taxing master for re-taxation in accordance with the applicable regulations

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 court held that an appeal from a taxation ruling is properly brought by notice of motion under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as a taxation decision is an order of court. The court applied the principle that legislation does not operate retrospectively unless such intention is clear. Since the underlying suit was commenced and concluded under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI 267-4, that version applied to the taxation, not the 2018 amendments. The court found the instruction fees of UGX 30,000,000 manifestly excessive and reduced them to UGX 800,000 in accordance with the applicable regulations. Items 11 and 12 were found to be duplicates. The court set aside items 1 and 12 and remitted the bill for re-taxation.

Outcome

Bill of costs remitted to taxing master for re-taxation in accordance with the applicable regulations

Facts

The 2nd respondent was a defendant in Civil Suit No. 616 of 2007, in which judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed against the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent filed a bill of costs which was taxed by the taxing master on 16 September 2019 to UGX 49,869,710. The appellant challenged the taxation, arguing that the instruction fees of UGX 30,000,000 were manifestly excessive, that items 11 and 12 were duplicates, and that the total calculation was incorrect. The underlying suit concerned recovery of property worth UGX 1 billion situated in Munyonyo and lost income of USD 96,000. The 2nd respondent had testified that he spent approximately UGX 100,000,000 to complete a house on the suit land. The taxation was conducted under the 2018 regulations, but the underlying suit had been commenced in 2007 and concluded in 2015 under the earlier SI 267-4 regulations.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was properly brought by notice of motion under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the taxing master applied the correct legal principles in taxing the 2nd respondent's bill of costs.
  3. Which version of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations applied to the taxation of costs arising from a suit commenced and concluded before the 2018 amendments.
  4. Whether the instruction fees of UGX 30,000,000 were manifestly excessive.
  5. Whether items 11 and 12 of the bill of costs were duplicates.

Orders

  • Items 1 and 12 of the bill of costs are set aside.
  • The bill of costs is remitted back to the taxing master for re-taxation.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals from Taxation — Proper Procedure
An appeal from a taxation ruling is properly brought by notice of motion under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as a taxation decision constitutes an order of court within the meaning of Section 2(0) of the Civil Procedure Act, being a formal expression of a decision which is not a decree.
Statutory Interpretation — Retrospective Application of Legislation
Legislation does not operate retrospectively unless such intention appears clearly from the language of the enactment or by clear and necessary implication. A new statutory instrument does not affect acts done under a previous provision unless the contrary intention appears in the re-enacted provision.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Applicable Law
Where a bill of costs arises from a suit commenced and concluded under a previous version of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, that version applies to the taxation, not amendments enacted after the conclusion of the suit, as the law applicable is determined by the events leading up to the items taxed rather than the date of taxation.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees
Where instruction fees are taxed at an amount that is manifestly excessive in relation to the applicable regulations, the court on appeal may interfere with the taxing officer's assessment. Under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI 267-4, instruction fees for amounts exceeding UGX 20,000,000 are calculated at 1% on the excess.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — VAT
Before VAT is awarded on a taxed bill of costs, a certificate must be presented as proof of the law firm's VAT registration. It is procedurally wrong for a taxing master to award VAT in the absence of such evidence.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (3)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1999)
  • Gulu Institute of Health Science v Bwomu Gerald (High Court Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2016)
  • Hon. Erias Lukwago and Others v Electoral Commission and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 431 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakabuye_vKalule_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._41_of_2020)_[2023]_UGHCLD_85_(31_March_2023)
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.