Wakilii

Punjani Motors Limited v Njuba (Miscellaneous Application 1144 of 1997)

High Court · [1998] UGHC 30 · 1998 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Registrar's decision as Taxing Master in taxation of client/advocate bill of costs
Decision
Appeal partly allowed. VAT award set aside. Respondent must file suit to recover taxed costs. Appellant succeeded on two of nine grounds.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Appeal partly allowed. An advocate who receives instructions while holding a valid practising certificate and completes the work after renewing the certificate is entitled to costs, even if the matter remained pending during a period of non-renewal. However, the advocate must file a suit to recover costs after obtaining a taxing certificate; the certificate alone does not permit execution. VAT awards require proof of registration and payment. Instruction fees must be assessed on the basis of care, labour, complexity, and value of the matter, affording the taxing master broad discretion.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed. VAT award set aside. Respondent must file suit to recover taxed costs. Appellant succeeded on two of nine grounds.

Facts

Between December 1996 and April 1997, the respondent advocate, Sam K. Njuba, rendered legal services to the appellant, Punjani Motors Limited, for the sub-division of plot 32 Jinja Road into two plots and for securing the release of the original title deed mortgaged to Crane Bank. On 29 April 1997, the respondent delivered a bill of costs totalling UGX 11,700,000 (including VAT). The appellant disputed the bill, arguing that an earlier bill for UGX 1,872,000 had been issued and partially paid. On 12 June 1997, the respondent filed a notice of motion for taxation. On 8 December 1997, the Registrar as Taxing Master allowed the bill at UGX 11,700,000 less UGX 1,872,000 already paid, ordering the appellant to pay the balance of UGX 9,828,000. The appellant appealed, raising nine grounds including that the respondent had no valid practising certificate when the work was done, no formal order had been extracted, the costs were excessive, and VAT was improperly awarded.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent advocate was entitled to recover costs when his practising certificate had expired during the period in which the work was pending with other authorities.
  2. Whether the advocate was required to extract a formal order before filing a bill of costs for taxation.
  3. Whether the advocate was entitled to abandon an earlier bill of costs and file a new bill within the statutory scales.
  4. Whether the taxing master erred in relying on the affidavit filed in support of the notice of motion for taxation.
  5. Whether the items in the bill of costs fell under the fifth schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules.
  6. Whether Value Added Tax (VAT) was properly awarded in the absence of evidence that it had been paid or that the advocate was registered for VAT.
  7. Whether the costs allowed by the taxing master were grossly excessive.

Orders

  • The sum of UGX 782,000 allowed for VAT is set aside.
  • The respondent cannot execute the taxing certificate unless he first files a suit for recovery of costs as determined by the taxing master.
  • Each party to bear his own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocates Act — Practising Certificate — Entitlement to Costs
An advocate who receives instructions while in possession of a valid practising certificate and acts on those instructions during the currency of that certificate is entitled to costs, even where the completion of the work is delayed by third parties during a period when the advocate's certificate has expired but is subsequently renewed before completion.
Advocates Act — Recovery of Costs — Procedure
An advocate who obtains a taxing certificate for client/advocate costs must file a separate suit for the recovery of those costs; the certificate alone does not entitle the advocate to execute judgment without obtaining a court order in a formal action.
Taxation of Costs — Abandonment of Earlier Bill
An advocate is entitled to abandon an earlier bill of costs rendered outside the statutory scales and file a fresh bill within the prescribed rules where the client refuses to pay the earlier demand, and any payment received after filing the fresh bill is properly treated as part-payment.
Taxation of Costs — Classification under Schedules
Instruction fees for non-contentious matters not specifically provided for in the first four schedules of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules fall under the fifth schedule, which allows for a fair and reasonable fee having regard to care, labour, complexity, and value of the matter.
Taxation of Costs — Value Added Tax
An award of VAT in a taxation of costs is improper where the advocate has not provided evidence of payment of VAT to the tax authority or proof of registration for VAT purposes; such an item should be set aside and may be re-taxed upon proof of payment and registration.
Taxation of Costs — Exercise of Discretion by Taxing Master
The taxing master possesses broad discretion in assessing instruction fees under the fifth schedule, and an appellate court will not interfere unless the exercise of that discretion is shown to be unreasonable; there is no mathematical formula, and each case must be judged on its own merits and circumstances, including the value of the subject matter.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (7)

  • Duke and Co. Advocates v Life Insurance Corporation (1979) H.C.B. 198
  • Alfred Olwora (vs Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1992)
  • Bukirwa vs Dr. Kinvata
  • In re Mukasa, an advocate (Miscellaneous Cause No. 76 of 1973) (1978) H.C.B. 193
  • Lwero Growers Ltd v Mubende Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1995)
  • Messania Issa & Co. v Feral (1967) E.A. 555
  • Patrick Mafunbi & Anor v Solex Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Punjani Motors Limited v Njuba (Miscellaneous Application 1144 of 1997) [1998] UGHC 30 (14 April 1998)
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.