Wakilii

National Medical Stores and Anor v Magezi (Consolidation Taxation Cause 8 of 2014)

East African Court of Justice · National Medical Stores and Anor v Magezi (Consolidation Taxation Cause 8 of 2014) [2015] EACJ 100 (7 September 2015) · 2015 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of bills of costs following successful applications for costs after applicants were wrongly impleaded as interested parties in a reference and subsequently withdrawn
Decision
Bills of costs taxed at significantly reduced amounts from those claimed

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 Taxing Officer overruled the objection to representation, finding that the advocates had complied with the Court Rules. Instruction fees were assessed at USD 12,000 per party (USD 8,000 for the reference and USD 4,000 for the applications) plus 18% VAT, rather than the amounts claimed based on the alleged subject matter value. The bills were taxed at USD 42,829.49 for National Medical Stores and USD 18,012 for Quality Chemicals Industries Ltd, significantly lower than the amounts claimed.

Outcome

Bills of costs taxed at significantly reduced amounts from those claimed

Facts

The applicants had been wrongly impleaded as interested parties in Reference No. 5 of 2013. After filing responses, the applicant in the reference amended and withdrew the reference against them without agreement on costs. The applicants filed separate applications (consolidated as Applications Nos. 8 and 9 of 2014) seeking costs. The Court ruled on 19 June 2014 that the applicants were entitled to costs. National Medical Stores claimed USD 309,086 and Quality Chemicals Industries claimed USD 257,643.97 in their bills of costs. The respondent objected to the amounts claimed and raised a procedural objection regarding procurement of legal services by National Medical Stores.

Issues

  1. Whether the objection to representation of National Medical Stores on grounds of procurement irregularity should be sustained.
  2. What is the appropriate basis for calculating instruction fees where parties were wrongly impleaded as interested parties and subsequently withdrawn.
  3. What amounts should be allowed for instruction fees, attendances, perusals, drawings, and disbursements in the taxation of costs.

Orders

  • Objection to representation of National Medical Stores overruled.
  • Taxation Cause No. 2 of 2014 (National Medical Stores v Godfrey Magezi) taxed at USD 42,829.49 comprising instruction fees inclusive of 18% VAT of USD 14,160 plus drawings, perusals, attendances and disbursements of USD 28,669.49.
  • Taxation Cause No. 4 of 2014 (Quality Chemical Industry Ltd v Godfrey Magezi) taxed at USD 18,012 comprising instruction fees of USD 14,160 plus drawings, perusals, attendances and disbursements of USD 3,852.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Representation — Compliance with Court Rules
Where advocates have filed certified copies of practicing certificates and a company resolution appointing representatives as required by the Court Rules, an objection to representation raised for the first time at taxation without prior notice and without supporting documentation is properly overruled.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Wrongly Impleaded Parties
Parties wrongly impleaded as interested parties in a reference who are withdrawn at a preliminary stage cannot charge instruction fees based on the alleged monetary value of the subject matter in the reference where the reference itself sought declaratory relief for breach of treaty provisions rather than monetary recovery.
Taxation of Costs — Discretion of Taxing Officer — Consistency in Awards
In exercising discretion on taxation of costs, the taxing officer must act judicially and not whimsically, ensure successful litigants are fairly reimbursed while preventing costs from rising to levels that deny access to justice, and maintain consistency with awards in comparable cases.
Taxation of Costs — Getting Up Fees — Preliminary Stage Withdrawal
No fee for getting up is chargeable where parties were withdrawn from proceedings before the matter was confirmed for hearing, as the relevant rule provides that no such fee is chargeable until the case has been confirmed for hearing.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(d)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 7(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 8(1)(c)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 23
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 27(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 17
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 51(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 111
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 113
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 1(b)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 2
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 9
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 11

Cases cited (7)

  • The Clerk of the National Assembly of Kenya v Prof. Anyang Nyongo & Others (Taxation Cause No. 3 of 2010)
  • Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services of EA Ltd [1972] EA 162
  • McPherson v BNB Paribas [2004] 3 All ER 226
  • First American Bank of Kenya vs Shah and Others
  • Modern Holdings Limited
  • Syno Hydro
  • Hon. Sam Njuba v Hon. Sitenda Sebalu (Taxation No. 1 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

National Medical Stores and Anor v Magezi (Consolidation Taxation Cause 8 of 2014) [2015] EACJ 100 (7 September 2015)
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.