Wakilii

Otim v Alupo (Taxation Appeal 3 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 62 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from the Deputy Registrar's decision awarding costs in a civil suit
Decision
Appeal dismissed; taxing master's award of UGX 32,330,000 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

Held that a taxing master's discretion in awarding costs will not be interfered with where it was exercised within legal parameters and based on facts presented. Where a party elects not to appear at the taxation hearing despite service, they cannot subsequently challenge the exercise of discretion on specific items not raised at the hearing. The instruction fees awarded for declaratory orders involving fraud and cancellation of title registration were reasonable under Regulation 9(1) which requires a reasonable fee not less than UGX 2,000,000 for cases not provided for in the schedule.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; taxing master's award of UGX 32,330,000 upheld

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment in Civil Suit No. 64 of 2019 concerning declaratory orders relating to fraudulent registration of joint proprietorship on land. The respondent's bill of costs totalling UGX 115,872,600 was taxed on 5 May 2023. Despite being served with a hearing notice, the appellant and his counsel did not appear. The Deputy Registrar taxed the bill exparte and awarded UGX 32,330,000 on 15 June 2023. The bill included instruction fees of UGX 10,000,000 for the main suit and UGX 5,000,000 for representing the plaintiff in an interlocutory application, plus transport costs and other disbursements. The appellant challenged the award as excessive and argued the taxing master failed to apply proper principles of taxation and did not demonstrate how she arrived at the quantum of instruction fees.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing master erred in law and fact when she failed to apply properly known and precedent principles of taxation.
  2. Whether the taxing master erred in taxing and allowing a manifestly excessive bill of costs totalling UGX 32,330,000.
  3. Whether the taxing master failed to demonstrate how she arrived at the quantum of instruction fees awarded.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Appeal — Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with a taxing officer's exercise of discretion in awarding costs where that discretion was exercised within the parameters of the law and based on the facts presented before the taxing officer.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Declaratory Orders
For instruction fees in cases not provided for in Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, Regulation 9(1) requires the fee to be reasonable but not less than UGX 2,000,000, with no prescribed upper limit, leaving the determination of reasonableness to the taxing master's discretion based on the nature and complexity of the case.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Interlocutory Applications
Regulation 9(2) of Schedule 6 to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 provides that fees for instructions to make or oppose interlocutory applications shall not be less than UGX 300,000 with no prescribed upper limit, the quantum being within the taxing master's discretion after considering the weight of the application.
Taxation of Costs — Exparte Taxation — Subsequent Challenge
Where a party and their counsel elect not to attend a taxation hearing despite being served with a hearing notice, and the bill is taxed exparte, it is difficult for that party to subsequently fault the exercise of discretion on specific items that were not challenged at the taxation hearing.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • Malcered Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and others 1972 EA 162
  • Nalumansi v Lule Superintendent of Uganda (Civil Application No. 12 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Otim v Alupo (Taxation Appeal 3 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 62 (30 January 2024)
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.