Wakilii

Okumu & Otjers v Uganda Electricirty Transmission Company Limited (TAXATION APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 108 · 2020 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxing master's award of costs arising from dismissed civil suit
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents; taxing master's award upheld

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 court dismissed the appeal against the taxing master's award of UGX 1,424,727,300 in costs. The court held that the taxing master properly exercised discretion in awarding UGX 1,180,000,000 as instruction fees by considering the value of the subject matter (UGX 56 billion under the consent order and taxation order sought to be set aside). The award was neither manifestly excessive nor exorbitant. Full instruction fees are ordinarily earned once a defence is filed, regardless of the stage at which the matter is determined.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents; taxing master's award upheld

Facts

The appellants sued the respondent and others in HCCS No. 49 of 2014. The High Court dismissed the suit with costs. The respondent's bill of costs was taxed and allowed at UGX 1,424,727,300, of which UGX 1,180,000,000 was instruction fees. The appellants appealed the taxation award, challenging primarily the instruction fees component. The underlying suit had sought to set aside a consent order and taxation order totalling UGX 56 billion. The taxing master determined the award based on the value of the subject matter and the principles governing taxation of costs. Other items totalling UGX 27,729,000 were allowed by consent and not contested.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing master erred in taxing the respondent's bill of costs without regard to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules and applicable principles.
  2. Whether the award of UGX 1,424,727,300 was manifestly excessive, exorbitant, and without legal or factual justification.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Determination of Subject Matter Value — Where Suit Seeks to Set Aside Prior Orders
Where a suit seeks to set aside a consent judgment and taxation order, the subject matter value for purposes of determining instruction fees is ascertainable from the pleadings and is the value of the orders sought to be set aside, not merely the nature of the relief claimed.
Taxation of Costs — Application of Rule 1(v) — Discretion of Taxing Master
Rule 1(v) of Schedule VI to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules provides only a minimum amount and does not specify a maximum fee. The taxing master has discretion to award an appropriate and reasonable instruction fee in the circumstances.
Taxation of Costs — Full Instruction Fees — Entitlement Upon Filing Defence
Full instruction fees to defend a suit are ordinarily earned the moment a defence has been filed. The subsequent progress or steps taken in the matter, including the stage at which the suit is dismissed, are irrelevant to that item of fees.
Taxation Appeals — Standard of Review — Interference with Taxing Master's Discretion
On taxation appeal, a judge ought not to interfere with the assessment of what the taxing master considered to be a reasonable fee unless the award is considered manifestly excessive, exorbitant, and without any legal or factual justification. Questions of quantum of costs are matters with which the taxing master is particularly suited to deal.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Advocates Act Cap. 267 s.62(1)
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations S.I 267-5 Regulation 3
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules Schedule VI Rule 1(iv)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules Schedule VI Rule 1(v)

Cases cited (10)

  • Okumu and Others v UEB in Liquidation and Others (Consolidated Taxation Appeals Nos. 9 and 10 of 2018)
  • Shumuk Springs Development Ltd and Others v Katatumba and Others (HCTA No. 21 of 2012)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (S.C.Civ. Appl. No. 23 of 1990) [1990] 2 EA 45
  • Auditor General v Ocip Moses and Others (Taxation Reference No. 089 of 2014)
  • Western Highland Creameries Ltd and Another v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Taxation Appeal Reference No. 10 of 2013)
  • First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Others (2002) 1 EA 64
  • Kapeeka Coffee Works Ltd and Another v NPART (CACA No. 2 of 2002)
  • Isamat Abraham v Epetait Francis (Misc. Appl. No. 2 of 2015)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Rock Petroleum (CACA No. 199 of 2013)
  • Twinobusingye Severino v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 27 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okumu & _ Otjers v Uganda Electricirty Transmission Company Limited (TAXATION APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 108 (15 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.