Wakilii

Opolot v Aura (Misc. Aplic. No. 81 of 2014)

High Court · [2016] UGHCLD 8 · 2016 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation reference from taxation of costs by Assistant Registrar in HCCA No. 29 of 2009
Decision
Taxation certificate varied; total deductions of UGX 2,320,000 applied to bill of costs

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

Held that the taxation certificate was partly excessive. Instruction fees of UGX 3,500,000 reduced to UGX 2,000,000 as commensurate with work done on appeal. Court attendance fees reduced by UGX 350,000 for consistency. Transport costs of UGX 200,000 disallowed. Copying costs reduced by UGX 270,000 as printing costs are now minimal. Total taxed costs reduced from UGX 7,386,500 to UGX 5,036,000.

Outcome

Taxation certificate varied; total deductions of UGX 2,320,000 applied to bill of costs

Facts

The respondent Aura Livingstone was awarded costs of appeal in HCCA No. 29 of 2009 by judgment dated 21 October 2013. The bill of costs was taxed by the Acting Assistant Registrar at UGX 7,386,500 under a certificate dated 21 November 2014. The applicant Opolot Justine challenged the taxation as excessive, seeking to set it aside and have the bill re-taxed. The taxation proceedings and ruling were not available on record, leaving only the taxed bill and certificate for review. The applicant contested awards on all items including instruction fees, court attendance fees, transport costs, and copying costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the instruction fees awarded by the taxing officer were excessive.
  2. Whether the court attendance fees awarded were reasonable.
  3. Whether transport costs for counsel and costs for making copies were properly awarded.

Orders

  • Instruction fees reduced from UGX 3,500,000 to UGX 2,000,000.
  • Court attendance fees reduced by UGX 350,000 and allowed at UGX 100,000 per attendance.
  • Transport costs of UGX 200,000 (Item 16) disallowed.
  • Copying costs reduced by UGX 270,000, with Item 17 allowed at UGX 10,000.
  • Bill of costs reduced from UGX 7,386,500 to UGX 5,036,000.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Assessment Principles
Instruction fees cover the advocate's work including taking instructions and work necessary for presenting the case for trial or appeal. Where the value of the subject matter cannot be determined, instruction fees should be not less than UGX 75,000 under rule 1(a)(iv) of the Sixth Schedule to the Taxation of Costs Rules. Advocates ought to be adequately remunerated for work done without making costs so high as to deny access to courts.
Taxation of Costs — Assessment of Instruction Fees on Appeal
In assessing instruction fees for appellate work, the court considers the work done including research, analysis of documents presented at trial, study of the lower court record, and preparation of written submissions. Instruction fees must be commensurate with the actual work performed.
Taxation of Costs — Photocopying Costs — Modern Practice
The provision for making copies was historically based on the high cost of duplicating copies using machines then in place. Presently, where counsel simply prints copies from a printer, the cost of doing so is minimal and awards for copying must reflect current technological realities.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Taxation of Costs Rules Schedule 6 rule 1(a)(iv)

Cases cited (2)

  • Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electrics (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
  • Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services of East Africa [1972] EA 162

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Opolot v Aura (Misc. Aplic. No. 81 of 2014) [2016] UGHCLD 8 (8 July 2016)
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.