Wakilii

National Water and Sewerage Corporation v Mugisha Cyprian Araali (Civil Reference No. 0005 of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 277 · 2018 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference under section 62 of the Advocates Act from a decision of the taxing officer arising from Civil Suit No. 287 of 2011
Decision
Bill of costs re-taxed at reduced amount; instruction fees reduced from Shs 2,500,000/= to Shs 1,500,000/=

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

The High Court partly allowed a reference from the taxing officer's decision, finding instruction fees of Shs 2,500,000/= excessive for an application for leave to appeal and reducing them to Shs 1,500,000/=. The court held that VAT must be computed only on instruction fees, not on the total bill including disbursements and transport refunds. Computational errors totaling Shs 795,000/= were corrected. The bill was re-taxed at Shs 4,557,000/=.

Outcome

Bill of costs re-taxed at reduced amount; instruction fees reduced from Shs 2,500,000/= to Shs 1,500,000/=

Facts

The respondent obtained a taxation order ex parte in Civil Suit No. 287 of 2011, with costs taxed at Shs 56,040,320/=. The applicant filed a reference under section 62 of the Advocates Act challenging the entire taxed bill as excessive and improperly computed. The applicant contested instruction fees of Shs 2,500,000/=, various items for copying documents, VAT computation, and alleged computational errors totaling Shs 1,000,000/=. The applicant had not attended the original taxation hearing to oppose the bill. The underlying matter originated in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Mengo and had given rise to multiple applications in the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer erred in law and fact when considering a bill of costs not drawn in accordance with the Advocates' Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Regulations.
  2. Whether the instruction fees of Shs 2,500,000/= were excessive.
  3. Whether VAT was properly computed on the total bill figure or only on instruction fees.
  4. Whether the taxing officer made computational errors in the total sum awarded.

Orders

  • Application succeeds in part.
  • Instruction fees reduced from Shs 2,500,000/= to Shs 1,500,000/=.
  • VAT to be computed only on instruction fees at 18%, resulting in Shs 270,000/=.
  • Bill of costs re-taxed and allowed at Shs 4,557,000/=.
  • No order as to costs since mistakes in computation were made by the taxing officer.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Judicial Review of Taxing Officer's Assessment
A judge does not interfere with the assessment of what the taxing officer considers to be a reasonable fee save in exceptional cases, as questions of quantum of costs are matters with which the taxing officer is particularly fitted to deal and in which he has more experience than the judge.
Taxation of Costs — Grounds for Interference with Taxing Officer's Decision
An exceptional case warranting judicial interference arises where it is shown expressly or by inference that in assessing the quantum of the fee allowed, the taxing officer exercised or applied a wrong principle, which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low.
Taxation of Costs — VAT Computation on Bills of Costs
Value Added Tax on a bill of costs must be computed only on instruction fees and not on the total figure of the bill, as the total bill includes items such as transport refunds and other disbursements which do not attract VAT.
Taxation of Costs — Production of VAT Certificate
The requirement for production of a VAT certificate must be specifically requested by the party contending that the opposite party is not VAT registered; where a party does not attend the taxation hearing, it is improper to speculate about the absence of a certificate.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Advocates Act s.62
  • Advocates' Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Regulations Schedule 6
  • Advocates' Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Regulations r.2(a)
  • Advocates' Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Regulations r.2(b)
  • Advocates' Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Regulations r.3(a)

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.

National Water and Sewerage Corporation v Mugisha Cyprian Araali (Civil Reference No. 0005 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 277 (11 June 2018)
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.