Wakilii

Odong-Ocaya v Oweka & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 111 of 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHC 111 · 2020 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of bill of costs following dismissal of suit for want of prosecution
Decision
Taxation award set aside and bill of costs remitted for fresh taxation

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 held that while the Taxing Officer was justified in proceeding ex-parte after proof of service, the award of shs. 62,303,600/= was manifestly excessive given that the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution after closure of proceedings and before any further step was taken. The Taxing Officer misdirected himself by considering complexity as a criterion without a certificate of complexity. The bill of costs was remitted for taxation de novo.

Outcome

Taxation award set aside and bill of costs remitted for fresh taxation

Facts

The appellant filed Civil Suit No. 69 of 2013 in the Chief Magistrates Court at Gulu against the respondents seeking recovery of land. The appellant took no further step in the suit for nearly six years until 3 December 2018 when it was dismissed with costs to the respondents for want of prosecution. The respondents filed a bill of costs which was fixed for taxation on 4 July 2019. Counsel for the appellant was served with a taxation hearing notice on 20 June 2019 but neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared on the taxation date. Taxation proceeded ex-parte resulting in an award of shs. 62,303,600/=. The appellant was served with a notice to show cause why execution should not issue on 4 July 2019 which prompted this appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in proceeding to tax the respondents' bill of costs ex-parte without proof of service.
  2. Whether the bill of costs was drawn according to scale.
  3. Whether the Taxing Officer allowed disbursements without corresponding proof of expenditure.
  4. Whether the resultant award, especially the instruction fees, was manifestly excessive, harsh and unjustified.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Taxation award of shs. 62,303,600/= set aside.
  • Bill of costs remitted back to the Grade One Magistrate for taxation de novo.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Principles for Judicial Interference
A judge may interfere with a Taxing Officer's discretion in awarding costs where there has been an error in principle, or where the award is so manifestly excessive as to justify treating it as indicative of the exercise of a wrong principle, or where there are exceptional circumstances which otherwise justify the court's intervention.
Taxation of Costs — Requirement for Reasons
The order awarding a specified amount ought to speak for itself by giving reasons. The judgment debtor must know why and on what grounds the specified amount has been passed against him or her, as the requirement for self-explanatory orders operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action and gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made.
Party-and-Party Costs — Principle of Indemnity
Party-and-party costs are in effect damages awarded to the successful litigant as compensation for the expense to which he has been put by reason of the litigation. The principle of indemnity requires that only costs reasonably incurred, as opposed to all necessary costs, may be recovered. The costs chargeable under taxation as between party and party are limited to all that which was necessary to enable the adverse party to conduct the litigation, and no more.
Taxation of Costs — Certificate of Complexity
Where the responsibility entrusted to counsel in the proceedings is quite ordinary and calls for nothing but normal diligence, where there is nothing novel in the proceedings, where there is nothing to indicate time-consuming or skill engaging activities, and where no certificate of complexity was issued by the trial court, a Taxing Officer misdirects himself by considering complexity as one of the criteria guiding the assessment of legal fees recoverable.
Taxation de Novo — Conditions
A taxation de novo should not be ordered unless the following conjunctive conditions are met: that the original taxation was null or defective; that the interests of justice require it; and that no injustice will be occasioned to the other party if an order for taxation de novo is made.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Thomas James Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] EA 492
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Limited [2002] 1 WLR 2409
  • Cullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] 1 WLR 1763
  • Malkinson v Trim [2003] 2 All ER 356
  • Fullerton v Matsqui 74 BCLR (2d) 311
  • First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Others [2002] 1 EA 64

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Odong-Ocaya v Oweka & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 111 of 2019) [2020] UGHC 111 (22 May 2020)
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.