Wakilii

Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Application No. 3 of 1995)

Supreme Court · [1995] UGSC 45 · 1995 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to the full Supreme Court, under rule 109(5) of the Rules of the Court, from a single judge's decision on a taxation reference
Decision
Reference to the full court dismissed; single judge's reduction of the instruction fee to Shs 7,000,000 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

On a reference to the full court, the Supreme Court upheld the single judge's reduction of the instruction fee from Shs 70m to Shs 7m. The substantive appeal had decided only the interpretation of section 1(1)(c) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 and declared the applicants "former owners"; it did not transfer proprietary title. The value of the suit property was therefore not a proper basis for taxing the instruction fee, and the taxing officer had erred by relying on the aggregate value of the plots, including developments belonging to persons not before the court. The reduced fee, though on the low side, was not based on a wrong principle and did not warrant interference. The reference was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Reference to the full court dismissed; single judge's reduction of the instruction fee to Shs 7,000,000 upheld

Facts

The applicants are the registered trustees of the Kampala Institute, a club whose largely Asian membership left Uganda following the 1972 expulsion. The club held leasehold land in Kampala on which stood a clubhouse, later used as a Prisons officers' mess. After repossession was refused, the applicants sued and, on appeal, the Supreme Court held the property fell within section 1(1)(c) of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982, declaring the applicants "former owners" entitled to apply for repossession, but declined to grant a repossession certificate. The applicants filed a bill of costs and the taxing officer allowed an instruction fee of Shs 70,000,000, based on a valuers' aggregate value of the plots of Shs 2.1 billion, which included post-1972 developments. On the respondent's reference, a single judge reduced the fee to Shs 7,000,000, holding the value of the property was not a proper basis for taxation. The applicants referred that decision to the full court.

Issues

  1. Whether the single judge erred in interfering with the taxing officer's award of instruction fee.
  2. Whether the value of the suit property was a proper basis for taxing the instruction fee where the appeal turned on the interpretation of a statute rather than the transfer of proprietary title.
  3. Whether the taxing officer erred in basing the instruction fee on the aggregate property value, including developments made by persons not party to the suit.
  4. Whether the instruction fee as reduced by the single judge was manifestly inadequate.

Orders

  • Reference dismissed.
  • Costs of the reference awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Instruction Fee — Reviewing the Taxing Officer's Discretion
An appellate court or judge will not interfere with the taxing officer's assessment of an instruction fee where the correct principles have been followed; interference is justified only where the taxing officer has proceeded on a wrong principle.
Costs — Taxation — Instruction Fee — Value of Subject Matter as Basis
Where the litigation determined only a point of statutory interpretation and did not transfer or quantify proprietary title in money terms, the value of the suit property is not a proper basis for assessing the instruction fee; what is at stake in the appeal, rather than the property's value, is the relevant consideration.
Costs — Taxation — Instruction Fee — Valuation Including Third-Party Interests
A taxing officer misdirects himself by basing the instruction fee on the aggregate value of property that includes developments owned by, or interests of, persons who were not parties to the suit and not before the court.
Costs — Taxation — Instruction Fee — Manifestly Inadequate Award
An award of instruction fee will not be increased as manifestly inadequate merely because it is on the low side, provided the award was not based on a wrong principle or bad policy; public importance of the appeal is only one of several factors under paragraph 9(2) of the Third Schedule.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services Ltd (No. 2) [1972] EA 162
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blankets Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Nanyuki Esso Service Vs. Touring Cars Ltd (1972) EA
  • Patrick Makumbi & Another v Sole Electric (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)
  • Allen v Pratt (1888) 13 App Cas 780
  • Cooper & Another v Nevill & Another [1959] EA 74
  • Lutaya v Gandosha [1986] HCB 46
  • Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Application No. 3 of 1995) [1995] UGSC 45 (6 July 1995)
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.