Wakilii

Nijei Rawlins v Tito Turiyo (Miscellaneous Application No. 73 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 164 · 2022 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal under Section 62 of the Advocates Act from taxation of a party-to-party bill of costs
Decision
Appeal partly allowed. Taxing Officer's award reduced from Ushs 11,093,000 to Ushs 7,893,000, with instruction fees reduced from Ushs 9,200,000 to Ushs 6,000,000.

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 court dismissed the first ground of appeal, finding no valid consent judgment on costs as it was not endorsed by the court. The court allowed the second ground, holding that the Taxing Officer applied a wrong principle by awarding full instruction fees in a suit that did not proceed to trial. Instruction fees grow as the suit proceeds, and where a full trial has not been conducted, only a fraction commensurate with the work done should be awarded. The instruction fees were reduced from Ushs 9,200,000 to Ushs 6,000,000.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed. Taxing Officer's award reduced from Ushs 11,093,000 to Ushs 7,893,000, with instruction fees reduced from Ushs 9,200,000 to Ushs 6,000,000.

Facts

The applicant sued the respondent in H.C.C.S No. 354 of 2019 seeking to recover land. The suit was withdrawn shortly afterwards before any court appearances. The respondent filed a party-to-party bill of costs which was taxed by the Taxing Officer and allowed at Ushs 11,093,000, including instruction fees of Ushs 9,200,000. The applicant appealed, arguing that the parties had reached a consent agreement to settle the bill at Ushs 5,000,000, and that full instruction fees should not be awarded when the matter did not proceed to trial. The respondent denied the alleged consent agreement.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in proceeding to tax the bill of costs after the entire bill of costs was allegedly consented to during the pre-taxation meeting.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in awarding full instruction fees of Ushs 9,200,000 on a matter that did not proceed to trial.

Orders

  • The Taxing Officer's award of Ushs 11,093,000 is set aside.
  • The total award on the respondent's bill of costs is reduced to Ushs 7,893,000.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs for this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Consent Judgments — Validity — Requirement of Court Endorsement
A consent judgment on a bill of costs is not valid unless it is endorsed by the Court under Order 50 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. A document signed only by advocates representing the parties, without court endorsement and without the parties themselves as signatories, does not constitute a valid consent judgment.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Pre-taxation Meetings — Right of Party to Appear
Regulation 13(A) of the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations allows a party, if unrepresented, to participate in identifying costs, fees and expenses on which they agree before taxation of a bill of costs. There is nothing in law that prevents a party from representing himself or herself in a pre-taxation hearing.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Entitlement Based on Progress of Suit
Instruction fees grow as the suit proceeds. An advocate does not immediately become entitled to claim the whole instruction fees that may ultimately be claimed in a full blown trial. Where a full blown trial has not been conducted, full instruction fees cannot be awarded. Only a fraction of the instruction fee commensurate with the level of effort put in by the advocate should be awarded.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Appeals from Taxing Officer — Grounds for Judicial Interference
A judge will not interfere with the assessment of the Taxing Officer except in exceptional cases. An exceptional case arises where it is shown that the Taxing Officer applied a wrong principle in assessing the quantum of fees. Application of a wrong principle may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low. The judge should interfere only if satisfied that the error substantially affected the decision on quantum and that upholding the amount would cause injustice.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • Lumweno & Co Advocates v Transafrica Assurance Company Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 0095 of 2004)
  • 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.

Nijei_Rawlins_v_Tito_Turiyo_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._73_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_164_(2_September_2022)
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.