Wakilii

Obadi Enterprises v Uganda Revenue Authority and Another (Civil Suit 938 of 1993)

High Court · [1996] UGHC 62 · 1996 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by way of Notice of Motion under Order 48 rule 1 of the CPR seeking revision of Registrar's taxation order under Section 83 of the CPA
Decision
Taxation order set aside and matter remitted to Registrar for fresh taxation according to law

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 High Court exercised its revisionary powers under Section 84(c) of the CPA to set aside a taxation order where the Registrar allowed an instruction fee based on the amount claimed in a counter-claim rather than the amount actually awarded in judgment. The court held that this constituted an injustice, as it would result in the advocates receiving UGX 17 million when the actual damages awarded were only UGX 1.5 million, causing undue hardship to the paying party. The taxation was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh taxation according to law.

Outcome

Taxation order set aside and matter remitted to Registrar for fresh taxation according to law

Facts

Obadi Enterprises filed Civil Suit No. 938 of 1993 against Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) and Ddegeya Trading Stores. Ddegeya counter-claimed for special damages exceeding UGX 300 million, general damages, punitive damages, interest and costs. On 12 July 1996, judgment was delivered in which Ddegeya succeeded in its counter-claim and was awarded UGX 1 million in general damages, UGX 500,000 as punitive damages, interest and costs only. The Registrar (Civil) subsequently taxed Ddegeya's Bill of Costs at UGX 17,790,000 plus 17% VAT by consent of both parties. When URA requested revision of the taxation, the Registrar declined, stating the figure had been arrived at by consent and he could not alter his decision. URA then lodged a Notice of Appeal and filed this application seeking revision under Section 83 of the CPA.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court could exercise its revisionary powers under Section 84 of the CPA to set aside a taxation order entered by consent.
  2. Whether the Registrar acted with material irregularity or injustice in allowing an instruction fee based on the amount claimed rather than the amount awarded in judgment.
  3. Whether a consent order on taxation can be set aside absent fraud or undue influence.

Orders

  • The taxation in respect of the respondent's Bill of Costs allowed by the Registrar at UGX 17,790,000 plus 17% VAT is unjust and is hereby set aside.
  • The second respondent's said Bill of Costs is invalid and is hereby quashed.
  • The second respondent shall prepare a fresh Bill of Costs which is honest and done according to law and submit it to the Registrar of the High Court who shall then tax it in the presence of both parties in light of the contents of this revisional order.
  • The respondent shall pay the costs of this matter.
  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Revision — Grounds for Exercise of Revisionary Powers — Injustice in Taxation Order
The High Court may exercise its revisionary powers under Section 84(c) of the Civil Procedure Act where a subordinate court or officer has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity or injustice, including where a Registrar allows a taxation based on an unjust calculation that does not reflect the actual award.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Basis of Calculation
Instruction fees in taxation of costs should be based on the amount actually awarded in judgment, not on the amount claimed. Where a counter-claimant is awarded UGX 1.5 million but instruction fees are calculated based on a claim exceeding UGX 700 million, this constitutes an injustice warranting revision.
Civil Procedure — Consent Orders — Setting Aside Taxation Entered by Consent
A taxation order entered by consent may be set aside on revision where the Registrar recorded a consent order contrary to remuneration rules, as this constitutes a valid ground for setting aside the consent order without requiring proof of fraud or undue influence.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Purpose of Remuneration Rules
The Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules and related statutory instruments are intended to determine fair remuneration for advocates in respect of work done, not to cause undue hardship or injustice to parties. A taxation that would result in advocates receiving vastly more than the damages awarded to their client represents unfairness.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • Brooke Bond Liebig (U) Ltd v Maliy [1975] EA 266
  • Clause 69 (37) of 1981 - In the Matter of an Award of costs - Haji Ilisa Sebirumbi v Another

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Obadi Enterprises v Uganda Revenue Authority and Another (Civil Suit 938 of 1993) [1996] UGHC 62 (7 October 1996)
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.