Wakilii

Nyongo and Others v Attorney General of Republic of Kenya (Taxation No.2 of 2010)

East African Court of Justice · [2010] EACJ 7 · 2010 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of costs arising from two applications for extension of time
Decision
Bill of costs partly allowed and taxed at USD 528,802.24

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 held that while the applications involved complex matters requiring substantial professional responsibility and research, the instruction fees claimed were excessive. The court awarded USD 225,000.00 for each of the two applications (items 1 and 24), totaling USD 450,000.00, plus undisputed amounts and VAT, for a total award of USD 528,802.24.

Outcome

Bill of costs partly allowed and taxed at USD 528,802.24

Facts

The applicants sought taxation of costs arising from two applications filed by the Attorney-General of Kenya seeking extensions of time. Application No. 4 of 2009 sought extension of time to file a reference arising from party and party costs. Application No. 1 of 2010 sought extension of time to serve a memorandum and record of appeal. Both applications were dismissed with costs against the Attorney-General. The applicants filed a bill of costs claiming USD 1,091,745.00. The parties agreed on most items totaling USD 5,864.00. The dispute centered on items 1 and 24, being instruction fees of USD 540,540.00 each. The respondent argued these were excessive and proposed USD 10,000.00 per item. The applicants argued the fees were justified by the complexity, novelty, and professional responsibility involved in the applications.

Issues

  1. Whether the instruction fees claimed in items 1 and 24 of the bill of costs totaling USD 1,081,080.00 were reasonable.
  2. What amount should be awarded as instruction fees for two applications for extension of time.

Orders

  • Items 2-23 and 25-35 of the bill of costs totaling USD 5,864.00 taxed as presented.
  • Item 1 taxed at USD 225,000.00.
  • Item 24 taxed at USD 225,000.00.
  • Total bill taxed at USD 528,802.24 including 16% VAT of USD 72,938.24.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Discretion of Taxing Officer
The taxing officer has discretion to assess instruction fees as he considers just, taking into account the nature and importance of the matter, the interest of the parties, the general conduct of proceedings, and all other relevant circumstances.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Factors for Assessment
In assessing instruction fees, the court must consider the complexity of the matter, the professional responsibility undertaken, the extent of research required, and the novelty of the legal issues, while ensuring costs remain reasonable and do not make the court inaccessible.
Taxation of Costs — Purpose of Cost Awards — Indemnity Principle
The purpose of awarding costs is to indemnify the successful party for expenses reasonably incurred in litigation, and failure to fully indemnify for costs reasonably incurred constitutes a failure to discharge the court's function of doing justice.

Legislation cited (1)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, Second Schedule, Rule 9

Cases cited (2)

  • Taxation Cause No. 6 of 2008
  • Joreth Limited v Kigano & Associates (Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1999)

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 Republic of Kenya (Taxation No.2 of 2010) [2010] EACJ 7 (22 June 2010)
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.