Wakilii

Noble Builders (U) Ltd v Sietco (Civil Application No. 16 of 2000)

Supreme Court · [2000] UGSC 43 · 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 the decision of the Registrar as Taxing Officer
Decision
Reference allowed; taxing officer's orders set aside and instruction fees on items 1 and 23 reduced to a consolidated total of Shs 5,607,000, with costs of the reference to the applicant

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 the Registrar's taxation, the Supreme Court held that instruction fees for interlocutory applications are governed by paragraph 9(1) of the Third Schedule, not paragraph 9(2) which applies to appeals. The taxing officer erred in law by relying on extraneous considerations — the prestige of the court, inflation, and attracting recruits to the legal profession — rather than the actual work done. The court further held the awards of Shs 25,000,000 and Shs 35,000,000 for two simple applications manifestly excessive. The reference succeeded; the taxing officer's orders were set aside and the instruction fees reduced to Shs 2,000,000 and Shs 3,000,000 respectively, a consolidated total of Shs 5,607,000.

Outcome

Reference allowed; taxing officer's orders set aside and instruction fees on items 1 and 23 reduced to a consolidated total of Shs 5,607,000, with costs of the reference to the applicant

Facts

Following Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995, in which Sietco was the unsuccessful appellant and Noble Builders the successful respondent, two interlocutory applications had been filed during the appeal proceedings: one concerning whether the appellant was obliged to serve a record of appeal, and another, brought by Noble Builders, seeking to strike out the appeal. The respondent succeeded on both applications. Sietco's counsel presented a bill of costs for the two applications totalling Shs 402,360,000, of which the Registrar, as taxing officer, allowed Shs 60,607,000 — including instruction fees of Shs 25,000,000 on item 1 and Shs 35,000,000 on item 23. Noble Builders, dissatisfied, applied by way of reference to a single judge of the Supreme Court for a variation of the Registrar's orders, contending that the taxing officer applied the wrong taxation principles and that the sums allowed were manifestly excessive for what were relatively simple applications.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer applied the wrong principles or rules in taxing the bill of costs for the interlocutory applications.
  2. Whether the amounts allowed on items 1 and 23 of the bill of costs were manifestly excessive.

Orders

  • The reference succeeds.
  • The orders of the taxing officer are set aside.
  • Instruction fees of Shs 2,000,000 substituted for item (1) of the bill of costs.
  • Instruction fees of Shs 3,000,000 substituted for item (23) of the bill of costs.
  • Total consolidated taxed costs reduced to Shs 5,607,000.
  • The applicant shall have the costs of this reference.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Instruction Fees for Applications under Paragraph 9(1) of the Third Schedule
Instruction fees for an interlocutory application are governed by paragraph 9(1) of the Third Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules, under which the taxing officer awards a reasonable sum determined by the instructions given and the actual work done; paragraph 9(2), which directs regard to the amount and importance of the matter, applies to appeals, not applications.
Costs — Taxation — Irrelevant Considerations
A taxing officer errs in law by basing an award of instruction fees on extraneous matters such as the value of the subject matter of the appeal, the prestige or esteem of the court, inflation, the desire to attract recruits to the legal profession, or to discourage advocates from prolonging arguments.
Costs — Taxation — Grounds for Court Intervention
Where a taxing officer expressly bases his decision on a wrong principle resulting in allowing too high or too low an amount, the court will intervene and substitute its own assessment.
Costs — Taxation — Manifestly Excessive Awards
Costs that are manifestly excessive relative to the actual work done justify the court's intervention; an award for simple interlocutory applications that approaches the costs taxed in the main appeal is unjustified.
Costs — Taxation — Proof of Work Done
Counsel claiming costs must show proof of the research or work done; bare assertions that extensive research was undertaken or that submissions occupied many hours do not, without more, justify high instruction fees, and the conduct of the parties and counsel must be assessed objectively.
Costs — Taxation — Applicable Scale of Fees
Costs are taxed for the actual work done; where the work is performed under the current scale of fees, those scales apply even if the proceedings were commenced before the scales were revised.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Supreme Court Rules, Third Schedule, paragraph 9(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules, Third Schedule, paragraph 9(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules rule 105(1)
  • Expropriated Properties Act No. 9 of 1987 s.1(c)

Cases cited (11)

  • 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. 24 of 1999)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Limited (Civil Application No. 13 of 1999)
  • Premchand Raichand v.Quarry Services (1972) E.A. 62
  • Patrick Makumbi and Another v Sole Electronics (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Patrick Makumbi and Another v Sole Electronics (Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)
  • Registered Trustee of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Application No. 3 of 1995)
  • Jaffer Brothers v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
  • Jaffer Brothers Limited v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Application No. 21 of 1999)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (1975) Limited (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Noble Builders (U) Ltd v Sietco (Civil Application No. 16 of 2000) [2000] UGSC 43 (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.