Wakilii

Naomi Karugaba v Ronnie Rogers Amone and Ojwiya O. Nelson (Tax Reference No. 1 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 86 · 2025 Reference Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Tax reference from taxation of costs following judgment in Civil Suit No. 372 of 2017
Decision
Tax reference partly allowed with revised bill of costs reduced from UGX 31,341,840 to UGX 27,024,200

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 tax reference, revising the taxed bill of costs from UGX 31,341,840 to UGX 27,024,200. The court reduced instruction fees from UGX 14,277,640 to UGX 10,460,000 in accordance with Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, which sets instruction fees for a suit with a subject matter of UGX 200 million at UGX 10,460,000. The court upheld transport costs for the plaintiff and counsel but disallowed UGX 500,000 for photocopying under disbursements as this had already been catered for elsewhere in the bill.

Outcome

Tax reference partly allowed with revised bill of costs reduced from UGX 31,341,840 to UGX 27,024,200

Facts

The respondents successfully sued the appellant in Civil Suit No. 372 of 2017, obtaining judgment with costs. The respondents' advocates filed a bill of costs totalling UGX 98,054,400. In Taxation Application No. 0018 of 2024 heard on 1 July 2024, the taxing master allowed the bill at UGX 31,341,840. The appellant challenged this taxation, arguing that instruction fees of UGX 14,277,640 exceeded the amount prescribed by Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations for a suit with a subject matter of UGX 200 million, and that certain transport and photocopying disbursements were improperly allowed. The underlying suit was instituted in 2017 and decided in 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing master properly exercised discretion in allowing UGX 31,341,840 as the taxed bill of costs.
  2. Whether the instruction fees of UGX 14,277,640 were properly computed in accordance with Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.
  3. Whether the amounts allowed for transport costs (items 103-156) and disbursements (items 8 and 10) were reasonable and in accordance with the regulations.

Orders

  • The instruction fees on item one are set at UGX 10,460,000.
  • The amount under item 10 of disbursements (photocopying) is set at zero.
  • The amount of UGX 31,341,840 is set aside and the bill is allowed at UGX 27,024,200.
  • The reference partly succeeds.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Computation under Schedule 6
Instruction fees must be computed in accordance with Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations. Where the subject matter of a suit is UGX 200 million, Schedule 6 Paragraph 1(g) sets instruction fees at UGX 10,460,000, and a taxing officer has no discretion to award a higher amount absent exceptional circumstances.
Taxation of Costs — Discretion of Taxing Officer — Transport and Disbursements
Regulation 13 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations confers discretion on a taxing officer to allow all costs, charges and expenses that appear necessary or proper for the attainment of justice or for defending the rights of any party. This discretion extends to allowing transport costs incurred by parties and counsel where such costs are reasonably incurred.
Taxation of Costs — Disbursements — Duplication
Where a particular category of disbursement has already been catered for under one part of a bill of costs, a taxing officer errs in allowing a further lump sum for the same category under disbursements. Photocopying costs already allowed in the main bill cannot be duplicated as a separate disbursement item.
Taxation of Costs — Judicial Review of Taxation — Standard of Interference
Save in exceptional cases, a judge does not interfere with the assessment of what a taxing officer considers to be a reasonable fee. Questions of quantum of costs are matters with which the taxing officer is particularly fitted to deal and in which the taxing officer has more experience than the judge. A judge will not alter a fee allowed by a taxing officer merely because the judge would have allowed a higher or lower amount.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (1)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Naomi Karugaba v Ronnie Rogers Amone and Ojwiya O. Nelson (Tax Reference No. 1 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 86 (1 July 2025)
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.