Wakilii

Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani, Nasmudin Habib Virani (Civil Appeal 6 of 1995; Civil Appeal 6 of 1995)

Supreme Court · [1996] UGSC 4 · 1996 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court against a High Court ruling on a reference from the Taxing Officer's assessment of instruction fees; with a cross-appeal by the respondents.
Decision
Appeal partly allowed; instruction fee fixed at Shs. 6,000,000; cross-appeal dismissed.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. The prescribed scale fee is a minimum, not a maximum, and the instruction fee lies in the Taxing Officer's discretion, who may consider the work done, the value of the subject matter and prevailing economic conditions, but must not arrive at a figure by multiplying the scale fee. An appellate court interferes only for an error of principle, not on quantum alone. The Judge wrongly relied on an erroneous exchange-rate assumption; the Taxing Officer's fee was excessive while the Judge's reassessment was too low. The instruction fee was fixed at Shs. 6,000,000. The cross-appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed; instruction fee fixed at Shs. 6,000,000; cross-appeal dismissed.

Facts

In 1982 Eugenia Roussos sued the respondents in the High Court and obtained an ex parte judgment in her favour. She died in 1992, as had her advocate. The respondents applied to set aside the ex parte judgment and to substitute the appellant, Nicholas Roussos, her son and administrator of her estate, as plaintiff. The appellant, represented by new advocates, objected to the application to set aside the ex parte judgment; the trial judge overruled the objection, but the Supreme Court on appeal ordered that the respondents' application be struck out with costs to the appellant. The appellant then filed a bill of costs claiming Shs. 36,000,000 as instruction fees. The Taxing Officer taxed off Shs. 21,000,000 and allowed Shs. 15,000,000, having valued the suit property at USD 700,000 (converted at Shs. 1,000 per dollar) and factored in the fall in the value of the shilling. On the respondents' reference, Katutsi J. reduced the fee to Shs. 15,000,000, relying on an assumed 1982 exchange rate of Shs. 1,000 to the dollar. The appellant appealed and the respondents cross-appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellate Judge was justified in interfering with the instruction fee assessed by the Taxing Officer.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer was entitled to take into account the value of the subject matter of the suit and the fall in the value of the currency when assessing instruction fees.
  3. Whether the prescribed scale fee operates as a minimum or a maximum on the instruction fee that may be taxed.
  4. Whether the appellate Judge erred in basing his decision on an erroneous assumption about the exchange rate and in substituting his own discretion for that of the Taxing Officer.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The Ruling and Order of Katutsi J. set aside.
  • An order substituted allowing the instruction fee at Shs. 6,000,000.
  • Costs of the appeal in this Court and in the lower court to the appellant.
  • Cross-appeal dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Scale Fees as Minimum
The fee prescribed by the 6th Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules is a minimum and not a maximum; the figure ultimately allowed as an instruction fee lies in the discretion of the Taxing Officer.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Appellate Interference
An appellate court will interfere with a Taxing Officer's assessment of an instruction fee only where there has been an error in principle, and not on questions solely of quantum, where the Taxing Officer is the more experienced and appropriate authority; intervention is reserved for exceptional cases.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Method of Assessment
Where a Taxing Officer decides that the scale should be exceeded, he must place a fair value on the work and responsibility involved rather than arrive at a figure by multiplying the scale fee; multiplication factors are not a proper basis for assessing costs.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Relevant Considerations
In assessing an instruction fee the Taxing Officer may take into account the amount of work done by the advocate and, where relevant, the value of the subject matter of the suit and the prevailing economic conditions; every case is decided on its own merits.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Public Interest in Reasonable Costs
While advocates should be adequately remunerated to attract recruits to the profession, costs must be kept to a reasonable level so that access to justice is not placed beyond the reach of poor litigants, and consistency in awards should so far as practicable be maintained.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 1982 (Statutory Instrument No. 132 of 1982), 6th Schedule

Cases cited (7)

  • Thomas James Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking (1951) EA 492
  • Steel & Petroleum (E.A.) Ltd v Uganda Sugar Factory Ltd (1970) EA 141
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11
  • Pardhari v Osman (1969) EA 582
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services Ltd (1972) EA 182
  • Simpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation (1964) 3 All ER 833

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani, Nasmudin Habib Virani (Civil Appeal 6 of 1995; Civil Appeal 6 of 1995) [1996] UGSC 4 (3 March 1996)
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.