Wakilii

Ngirabakunzi v Delicacy Restaurant Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CA 14 of 2012)

High Court · [2012] UGCOMMC 160 · 2012 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of taxing master on bills of costs in withdrawn civil suit and dismissed application
Decision
Appeal dismissed; taxation awards upheld

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 held that a taxation decision is not a judgment requiring reasons under the Civil Procedure Act. The taxing master properly exercised discretion within statutory limits, awarding instruction fees of UGX 5,000,000 and UGX 2,000,000 for the main suit and application respectively. The use of a duplicate file was proper where the original could not be found. The court will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment unless the award is manifestly excessive as to constitute an injustice, which was not established. Appeal dismissed; each party to bear own costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; taxation awards upheld

Facts

The appellant filed Civil Suit No. 102 of 2011 against the respondent for trademark infringement and passing off, then filed Misc. Application No. 156 of 2011 for a temporary injunction. The application was dismissed and the appellant withdrew the main suit. The respondent filed bills of costs for both proceedings. The taxing master awarded UGX 6,298,500 for the main suit and UGX 2,657,500 for the application, including instruction fees of UGX 5,000,000 and UGX 2,000,000 respectively. The appellant appealed, contending the instruction fees were manifestly excessive. Taxation was conducted using a duplicate file as the original could not be found. The appellant's counsel holding brief agreed the taxing master should exercise discretion and raised no objections at taxation.

Issues

  1. Whether the instruction fees awarded by the taxing master of UGX 5,000,000 for the main suit and UGX 2,000,000 for the application were manifestly excessive.
  2. Whether the taxing master erred in conducting taxation using a duplicate file in the absence of the original court file.
  3. Whether the taxing master was required to give reasons for her taxation decision.
  4. Whether the court should interfere with the discretion exercised by the taxing master.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Nature of Taxation Decision — Not a Judgment
A taxation decision is not a judgment within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Act because no decree or order arises from it; rather a certificate of taxation is issued. The requirements in section 2(i) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 21 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules for judgments to contain reasons do not apply to taxation decisions.
Taxation of Costs — Taxing Master's Discretion — Instruction Fees
Under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules, the taxing master is empowered to tax instruction fees to any reasonable amount not less than UGX 75,000 for a main suit and not less than UGX 150,000 for an opposed application. The statutory minimums do not constitute maximums; the taxing master has discretion to award higher amounts where appropriate.
Taxation of Costs — Standard of Review — Manifest Excessiveness
A court will only interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of costs when the award is manifestly excessive or manifestly low as to amount to an injustice to one party, indicating that the taxing officer exercised or applied a wrong principle. The court will not alter a fee merely because it would have allowed a different amount.
Taxation of Costs — Principles — Reimbursement for Withdrawn Suit
Where a suit is withdrawn before hearing, a successful defendant who incurred costs of hiring an advocate to prepare a defence and represent them is entitled to be fairly reimbursed for those costs. It would be unjust not to reimburse such costs simply because the case was withdrawn before it was heard.
Taxation of Costs — Duplicate Court File — Procedure
Where an original court file cannot be found, a duplicate file may be opened upon application by ordinary letter with duplicate copies forwarded to the registrar. There is no standard formal procedure for applying to open a duplicate file. Taxation may properly proceed on the basis of a duplicate file containing all vital documents required for taxation.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Ebrahim A. Kassim & 2 Others v Habre International Ltd (Reference No. 16 of 1999)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa & Others No. 3 [1972] EA 162
  • Ngoma Ngime v Electoral Commission & Hon Winnie Byanyima [2001-2005] HCB 81
  • Taj Deen v Dobrosklonsky and Bhalla & Thakore [1957] 1 EA 379
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espaniol (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.

Ngirabakunzi v Delicacy Restaurant Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CA 14 of 2012) [2012] UGCommC 160 (13 December 2012)
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.