Wakilii

Njuba v Sebalu (Taxation Cause 1 of 2013)

East African Court of Justice · [2015] EACJ 83 · 2015 Bill Partly Taxed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of costs following striking out of applicant as nominal respondent in Reference No. 1 of 2010
Decision
Bill of costs reduced from claimed USD 127,785 to taxed amount of USD 18,773

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 taxed the bill of costs at USD 18,773, comprising USD 15,000 instruction fees and USD 3,773 for drawings and perusals. All disbursements were disallowed for lack of receipts as required by Rules 4(2) and 4(3). Instruction fees were reduced from the claimed USD 100,000 to USD 15,000, taking into account that the applicant was a nominal respondent struck off after substantive hearing rather than an actual respondent who defended the reference fully.

Outcome

Bill of costs reduced from claimed USD 127,785 to taxed amount of USD 18,773

Facts

Hon. Sam Njuba was the Third Respondent in Reference No. 1 of 2010. The Court struck off the 3rd and 4th Respondents and directed that the Applicant in the Reference pay them costs. Njuba filed a bill of costs for USD 127,785 through Victoria Advocates and Legal Consultants. The bill included instruction fees of USD 100,000, items for drawings and perusals totalling USD 4,000, and disbursements of USD 23,785. At the taxation hearing, counsel for the applicant admitted he had no receipts for disbursements despite the requirement under Rules 4(2) and 4(3) to produce them at least 14 days before taxation. The respondent objected to the lack of receipts and argued the instruction fees were excessive for a nominal respondent who was struck off.

Issues

  1. Whether disbursements should be allowed in the absence of receipts as required by Rule 4(2) and 4(3) of the Third Schedule.
  2. What is the appropriate instruction fee for a nominal respondent who was struck off after substantive hearing.
  3. Whether the claimed fees for perusals, drawings and copies comply with the Third Schedule scale of charges.

Orders

  • Bill of costs taxed at USD 18,773 (United States Dollars Eighteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Three).
  • Items 2 to 32 on drawings, copies and perusals taxed at USD 3,773.
  • Item 1 on instruction fees taxed at USD 15,000 inclusive of VAT.
  • All disbursements (items 1 to 17) disallowed for lack of receipts.
  • All taxed amounts include VAT.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Disbursements — Requirement for Receipts
Under Rules 4(2) and 4(3) of the Third Schedule to the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, receipts for disbursements must be produced to the taxing officer and served on the other party at least 14 days before taxation, and no disbursement shall be allowed which has not been paid at the time of taxation. In the absence of receipts to prove claimed disbursements, all items on disbursements must be disallowed.
Taxation of Costs — Calculation of Folios
Under Rule 1 of the Third Schedule on Taxation of Costs, a folio means one hundred words, and a single figure or group of figures up to seven counts as one word. Where it is impracticable to count every word in a lengthy document, folios may be approximately determined by counting the average number of words per page and multiplying by the total number of pages.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Nominal Respondent
Under Rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule, the instruction fee shall be such sum as the taxing officer considers reasonable having regard to the amount involved, the nature and importance of the cause or matter, the interest of the parties, other costs allowed, general conduct of proceedings, the person to bear costs and all relevant circumstances. A nominal respondent who is struck off after substantive hearing is entitled to lower instruction fees than actual respondents who must aggressively defend the reference.

Legislation cited (6)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Third Schedule Rule 1
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Third Schedule Rule 3
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Third Schedule Rule 4(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Third Schedule Rule 4(3)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Third Schedule Rule 7
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Third Schedule Rule 9(2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Katabazi & 21 Others v Secretary General of the East African Community (Taxation No. 5 of 2008)
  • Mwatela & 2 Others v East African Community (Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2006)
  • Kenya Ports Authority v Modern Holdings Limited (Taxation Reference No. 4 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Njuba v Sebalu (Taxation Cause 1 of 2013) [2015] EACJ 83 (20 March 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.