Wakilii

Namugowa Fred v Maira Daniel Kenneth (Taxation Appeal No. 113 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 866 · 2026 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from a taxing officer's ruling in a withdrawn land civil suit
Decision
Appeal partly allowed with instruction fee reduced and several bill items set aside or reduced

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 the taxation appeal. The court held that the taxing master was entitled to proceed ex parte where the appellant, after notice, failed to attend pre-taxation without reasonable excuse. The instruction fee was reduced from UGX 3,500,000 to UGX 2,000,000 as the presumed subject matter value did not exceed the Magistrate Grade One Court's pecuniary jurisdiction. Several bill items were set aside or reduced: mediation attendance fees were disallowed as parties bear their own mediation costs; duplicated attendance fees were taxed off; and excessive fees for drawing joint scheduling memoranda and extra copies were reduced.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed with instruction fee reduced and several bill items set aside or reduced

Facts

The appellant filed a land civil suit (No. 065 of 2019) in the Chief Magistrate Court of Mbale against the respondent, which she subsequently withdrew for lack of jurisdiction. The respondent filed a bill of costs which was taxed on 13 February 2025 in the appellant's absence at UGX 8,547,500. The bill of costs was served on the appellant on 3 July 2024. The matter was adjourned multiple times for pre-taxation, including on 22 October 2024 when it was adjourned to 14 November 2024 for pre-taxation in the presence of the appellant and counsel. On 14 November 2024, the appellant's counsel indicated a need to consent to the bill, and the matter was adjourned to 3 December 2024. However, on that date, both the appellant and counsel were absent despite their promise to pre-tax and consent. The taxing master proceeded ex parte and allowed the bill at UGX 8,547,500. The appellant appealed, challenging the lack of pre-taxation meeting, excessive instruction fees, and various specific items in the bill.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing master erred in failing to conduct a pre-taxation meeting before taxing the bill of costs.
  2. Whether the instruction fee of UGX 3,500,000 was manifestly excessive and inconsistent with taxation principles.
  3. Whether specific items (39, 41, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 65, 66, 67) in the bill of costs were taxed contrary to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.

Orders

  • It is declared that the taxing master was right to proceed with the taxation hearing ex parte.
  • The bill at UGX 3,500,000 as instruction fee is reduced to UGX 2,000,000.
  • The bill at UGX 100,000 as attendance under item 39 is set aside.
  • The bill at UGX 150,000 as extra copies for drawing 3 copies of written statement of defence under item 41 is reduced to UGX 100,000.
  • The bill taxed under items 50, 51, 52 and 53 is set aside.
  • The bill taxed under items 49, 55, 56, 57 and 58 is maintained.
  • The bill at UGX 300,000 under item 65 is reduced to UGX 200,000.
  • The bill at UGX 150,000 under item 66 is reduced to UGX 100,000.
  • The bill taxed under item 67 is maintained.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Ex Parte Proceedings — Failure to Attend Pre-Taxation After Notice
Where a party and counsel, after due notice, fail without reasonable excuse to appear for a pre-taxation hearing, the taxing master is entitled under Regulation 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018 to proceed with the taxation ex parte.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Subject Matter Value
Where a plaint does not specify the value of the subject matter and the suit was filed in a Magistrate Grade One Court, the value of the subject matter is presumed to be within that court's pecuniary jurisdiction of UGX 20,000,000. Instruction fees must be assessed according to the 6th Schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 and should not exceed UGX 2,000,000 for such matters.
Taxation of Costs — Mediation Attendance — Cost Recovery
Under Rule 20(1) of the Judicature (Mediation) Rules 2013, each party bears its own costs of participation in mediation unless the parties agree otherwise. Consequently, fees for counsel's attendance at mediation cannot be recovered through a bill of costs relating to trial proceedings.
Taxation of Costs — Discretion — Unascertainable Subject Matter Value
Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable from pleadings, judgment, or settlement, the taxing officer must exercise discretion judicially in assessing instruction fees.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Advocates Act Cap 259 s.68(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
  • Judicature Act Cap 16 s.37
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeal and References) Regulations SI.267-5 Regulation 3
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018 Regulation 9
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018 Regulation 13(a)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018 Regulation 11
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 6th Schedule Paragraph 1(1)(d)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Regulation 10
  • Judicature (Mediation) Rules 2013 Rule 20(1)

Cases cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namugowa Fred v Maira Daniel Kenneth (Taxation Appeal No. 113 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 866 (30 July 2026)
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.