Wakilii

Nyongo and Others v Attorney General of Kenya and Others (Taxation Cause No.6 of 2008)

East African Court of Justice · [2008] EACJ 5 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of bill of costs following successful Reference No. 1 of 2006
Decision
Bill of costs substantially reduced but still awarded at USD 2,033,164.99

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 reduced the professional fees from USD 4,339,416.89 to USD 1,508,000 (inclusive of VAT), finding the original claim excessive despite recognising the case's complexity and landmark nature. Getting-up fees were taxed at one-third of the reduced instruction fee (USD 502,666). Most disbursements were allowed where supported by receipts. Claims totalling USD 3,743 for travel and accommodation lacking receipts were taxed off, as was USD 2,857 for respondent's expenses per consent order. The bill was taxed at USD 2,033,164.99 total.

Outcome

Bill of costs substantially reduced but still awarded at USD 2,033,164.99

Facts

This is a taxation proceeding arising from Reference No. 1 of 2006, in which the applicants successfully challenged the appointment of Kenya's representatives to the East African Legislative Assembly. The applicants filed a bill of costs claiming USD 5,622,528.69 for expenses incurred in conducting the reference. The underlying reference was unprecedented in the Court's history, led to amendment of the Treaty establishing two divisions of the Court, and generated nine interlocutory applications including five intervener applications and applications for correction of orders, contempt proceedings, disqualification of judges, and expunging of Hansard records. The reference was brought under certificate of urgency and resulted in interim reliefs restraining Kenya members from being sworn in until the main reference was concluded. The respondent disputed the professional fees as excessive and challenged certain disbursements for lack of supporting documentation.

Issues

  1. Whether the professional fees claimed by the applicants in the bill of costs (USD 4,339,416.89) were reasonable in light of the complexity and significance of the underlying reference.
  2. Whether the applicants' claims for various disbursements were properly supported by documentary evidence.
  3. What amount should be taxed as reasonable instruction fees, getting-up fees, and other disbursements incurred by the applicants in conducting Reference No. 1 of 2006.

Orders

  • Professional fees (instruction fees) taxed at USD 1,508,000 inclusive of VAT.
  • Getting-up fees taxed at USD 502,666.
  • Items 3 to 85 taxed as presented.
  • Items 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96 on mileage, accommodation and meals taxed as presented.
  • Items 97, 98, 107, 109, 110, 115, 116, 118, 121, 124 on photocopying expenses taxed as presented.
  • Items 92 and 99 to 105 (USD 3,743) taxed off for lack of supporting receipts.
  • KShs 200,000 (USD 2,857) taxed off per consent order for respondent's court attendance expenses.
  • Bill of costs taxed at USD 2,033,164.99 total.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Professional Fees — Assessment Principles
When taxing professional fees in a bill of costs, the taxing officer must consider the volume and magnitude of documentary evidence, urgency of the brief, absence of developed jurisprudence, importance of the case, number of interlocutory applications, research work involved, time employed, value of the subject matter, and calibre of counsels, but must tax excessive claims down to a reasonable amount that reflects the work actually done.
Taxation of Costs — Disbursements — Burden of Proof
In taxation proceedings, the burden of proving the genuineness of receipts does not lie with the party who received services and was issued receipts, but rather with the objecting party who must provide evidence such as investigation with the Registrar of Companies showing that the service provider does not exist.
Taxation of Costs — Documentary Evidence Requirement
Claims for disbursements in a bill of costs that are not supported by receipts or other documentary evidence must be taxed off, as the court cannot satisfy itself that such expenses were actually incurred by the claimant.
Taxation of Costs — Indemnity Principle
The court's responsibility to do justice includes awarding costs to a successful party to indemnify them for expenses reasonably incurred in litigation, and failure to fully indemnify the party for all costs reasonably incurred constitutes a failure to discharge the court's function, though this must be balanced against the need to ensure costs do not hinder public access to justice.

Cases cited (6)

  • Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and Others (1972) EA 162
  • James Katabazi and Others v Secretary General of East African Community and Another (EACJ Taxation Cause No. 5 of 2008)
  • First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Others (2001) 1 EA 64
  • Simpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation (1964) 3 All ER 833
  • President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Gauteng Lions Rugby Union (2001) ZACC 5
  • City of Cape Town v Arun Property Development (PTY) Ltd and Another [2008] ZAWCHC

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nyongo and Others v Attorney General of Kenya and Others (Taxation Cause No.6 of 2008) [2008] EACJ 5 (19 December 2008) (Taxation Rulings)
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.