Wakilii

Noble Builders (U) Limited v Sietco (Civil Application 16 of 2000)

Supreme Court · [2000] UGSC 35 · 2000 Reference Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single judge of the Supreme Court from a taxing officer's (registrar's) taxation of costs
Decision
Reference allowed; taxing officer's award set aside and substituted with reduced sums of Shs 1,000,000 and Shs 3,000,000

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

On a reference from taxation, the Supreme Court (single judge) held the taxing officer erred in principle by assessing instruction fees in interlocutory applications under paragraph 9(2) of the Third Schedule (instructions to appeal) instead of paragraph 9(1), and by taking into account extraneous matters such as the prestige of the court and a desire to attract advocates to the profession. The complaint that the wrong scale of fees was applied failed. The taxed costs of Shs 60,607,000 were manifestly excessive. The reference succeeded; the taxing officer's orders were set aside and substituted with Shs 1,000,000 for item 1 and Shs 3,000,000 for item 23.

Outcome

Reference allowed; taxing officer's award set aside and substituted with reduced sums of Shs 1,000,000 and Shs 3,000,000

Facts

In the main appeal and cross-appeal (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995) Sietco was the unsuccessful appellant and Noble Builders the successful respondent. During those proceedings the parties filed two interlocutory applications on procedural matters — one concerning service of the record of appeal and one to strike out the appeal — in which Sietco was successful. Sietco's counsel presented a bill of costs for the two applications in the total sum of about Shs 402,150,000. The taxing officer (registrar) taxed and allowed the bill at Shs 60,607,000, comprising Shs 25,000,000 as instruction fees on item 1 and Shs 35,000,000 on item 23. Each application had taken only a few hours to argue. By contrast, the taxed costs of the main appeal, with certified two counsel, were Shs 330,068,500. Noble Builders referred the taxation to a single judge, contending the taxing officer applied wrong principles and that the award was manifestly excessive.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in taxing items 1 and 23 of the bill of costs by assessing instruction fees for interlocutory applications under the wrong paragraph of the Third Schedule and by taking extraneous matters into account.
  2. Whether the taxing officer applied the wrong scale of fees in taxing the bill of costs.
  3. Whether the costs allowed by the taxing officer were manifestly excessive.

Orders

  • Reference allowed.
  • The orders of the taxing officer set aside.
  • Shs 1,000,000 substituted for item (1) of the bill of costs.
  • Shs 3,000,000 substituted for item (23) of the bill of costs.
  • Applicant awarded the costs of the reference.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees for Interlocutory Applications
Instruction fees for interlocutory applications are to be assessed under paragraph 9(1) of the Third Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules, not under paragraph 9(2), which governs instructions to appeal or to oppose an appeal.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Extraneous Considerations
In assessing costs a taxing officer must confine the assessment to the work actually and reasonably done and must not take into account extraneous matters such as the subject matter of the litigation, the prestige of the court or a desire to attract advocates to the legal profession.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Interference on Reference — Error of Principle
Where a taxing officer expressly bases an opinion on a wrong principle, resulting in an award that is too high or too low, the court will interfere with the taxation.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Manifestly Excessive Award
Where taxed costs are manifestly excessive the court will intervene, set aside the taxing officer's award and substitute its own assessment of reasonable costs.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Applicable Scale of Fees
Costs are taxed according to the scale of fees in force at the time the work is done, and the present scale of fees applies even where the proceedings were commenced before that scale came into force.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court of Uganda, Third Schedule, paragraph 9(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court of Uganda, Third Schedule, paragraph 9(2)

Cases cited (9)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 48 of 2000)
  • Jaffer Brothers Ltd v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Application No. 14 of 1999)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Limited (Civil Application No. 13 of 1999)
  • Jaffer Brothers Ltd v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Application No. 24 of 1999)
  • The Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Application No. 3 of 1997)
  • Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services Ltd
  • Patrick Makumbi and Another v Sole Electronics (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1995)
  • Attorney General v. Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (1973) Limited, Civil Application

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Noble Builders (U) Limited v Sietco (Civil Application 16 of 2000) [2000] UGSC 35 (28 July 2000)
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.