Wakilii

Obadi Enterprises v Uganda Revenue Authority and Others (Civil Suit No. 993 of 1993)

High Court · [1996] UGHC 87 · 1996 Revision Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Uganda Revenue Authority to exercise the court's inherent and revisionary powers to set aside a taxation order by the Registrar
Decision
Taxation order set aside; matter remitted to Registrar for fresh taxation according to proper legal principles

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 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside a taxation order where the Registrar allowed an instruction fee based on the amount claimed in the counter-claim rather than the damages actually awarded. The court held that basing the instruction fee on the unawarrded claim amount rather than the court's award constituted acting with injustice in the exercise of jurisdiction. The taxation order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh taxation according to law.

Outcome

Taxation order set aside; matter remitted to Registrar for fresh taxation according to proper legal principles

Facts

Obadi Enterprises filed Civil Suit No. 993 of 1993 against Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) and Ddegeya Trading Stores. Ddegeya counter-claimed against URA seeking special damages exceeding UGX 300 million. On 12 July 1996, judgment was delivered awarding Ddegeya UGX 1 million in general damages, UGX 500,000 as punitive damages, interest, and costs only. No special damages were awarded. By consent, the Registrar taxed Ddegeya's Bill of Costs at UGX 17,790,000 plus 17% VAT. The instruction fee was calculated based on the unawarrded special damages claim of over UGX 300 million rather than the UGX 1.5 million actually awarded. URA requested revision and the Registrar refused. URA then filed both a Notice of Appeal and this application seeking to invoke the court's inherent and revisionary powers.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should exercise its inherent powers under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside the Registrar's taxation order.
  2. Whether the court should exercise its revisionary powers under section 84 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct an injustice arising from the taxation order.
  3. Whether the instruction fee in the Bill of Costs should be based on the amount claimed in the counter-claim or the amount actually awarded by the court.

Orders

  • The taxation 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 respondent's Bill of Costs is invalid and is hereby quashed.
  • The respondent shall prepare a fresh Bill of Costs which is honest and done according to law.
  • The fresh Bill of Costs shall be submitted to the Registrar of the High Court who shall 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.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fee — Basis of Calculation
When calculating an instruction fee under the Advocates (Remuneration And Taxation of Costs) Rules, the fee must be based on the amount actually awarded by the court in judgment, not on the amount claimed but not awarded.
Revision — Section 84 Civil Procedure Act — Acting with Injustice
A Taxing Officer acts with injustice in the exercise of jurisdiction within the meaning of section 84(c) of the Civil Procedure Act when endorsing an instruction fee based on an unawarrded claim rather than the amount actually awarded, thereby creating a situation where advocates' fees would vastly exceed the damages recovered.
Costs Rules — Purpose and Application
The Advocates (Remuneration And Taxation of Costs) Rules, 1982 and related statutory instruments are intended to determine fair remuneration for advocates in respect of work done, but not to cause undue hardship or injustice to parties.
Taxation — Bill of Costs — Form Requirements
A Bill of Costs must strictly follow Rule 45 of the Advocates (Remuneration And Taxation of Costs) Rules, 1982 by providing separate columns for service charges and professional charges; failure to do so renders the Bill invalid and may be quashed.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • Brooke Bond Liabig (T) Ltd. v. Mallya [1975] E.A. 266
  • Misc. Cause No. 737 of 1991 - In the Matter of an application to set aside an award of costs - Hajji Musa Schirumbi v. Joe Senteza & 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 Others (Civil Suit No. 993 of 1993) [1996] UGHC 87 (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.