Wakilii

Roussos v GulamHussein (Civil Appeal 6 of 1995)

Supreme Court · [1996] UGSC 23 · 1996 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court against a High Court decision on appeal from the Taxing Officer's assessment of an advocate's instruction fee
Decision
Appeal allowed; Taxing Officer's and appellate Judge's figures set aside and instruction fee fixed at shs. 6,000,000; cross-appeal dismissed.

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 3 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.

Good law Followed in 3 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 21 citing cases on record, 6 in the most recent three data years. 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

On a second appeal concerning the taxation of an advocate's instruction fee, the Supreme Court held that the scale fixes only a minimum, not a maximum, and the figure lies in the Taxing Officer's discretion, into which a court will intervene only where there is an error in principle, not on quantum alone. The first ground succeeded because both the Taxing Officer and the appellate Judge wrongly assumed an exchange rate of UGX 1,000 per US dollar when it was UGX 94. The Taxing Officer's UGX 15,000,000 award was nonetheless unduly excessive, while the Judge's reduction to UGX 1,500,000 was manifestly too low. The Court substituted UGX 6,000,000.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; Taxing Officer's and appellate Judge's figures set aside and instruction fee fixed at shs. 6,000,000; cross-appeal dismissed.

Facts

In 1982 Eugenia Roussos sued the respondents in the High Court and obtained an ex parte judgment in her favour. She died in 1992, as did her advocate. The respondents applied to set aside the ex parte judgment and to substitute the present appellant, Nicholas Roussos, a son who had taken over administration of her estate, as plaintiff. The appellant successfully objected and the Supreme Court struck out the application to set aside the judgment, with costs to the appellant. The appellant then filed a Bill of Costs claiming shs. 35,000,000 as an instruction fee. The Taxing Officer taxed off shs. 21,000,000 and allowed shs. 15,000,000. On the respondents' application a High Court Judge (Katutsi J.) reduced the instruction fee to shs. 1,500,000, partly on a valuation of the suit property (a horse) and the fall in the value of the shilling, using an assumed exchange rate of UGX 1,000 per US dollar. The appellant appealed and the respondents cross-appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellate Judge erred in basing his decision on an erroneous assumption that in 1982 the exchange rate was UGX 1,000 to US$1 when the official rate was UGX 94 to US$1.
  2. Whether the instruction fee allowed by the Taxing Officer was manifestly excessive and contrary to law because it exceeded the scale minimum.
  3. Whether the appellate Judge erred in substituting his own discretion for that of the Taxing Officer in reducing the instruction fee.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The Ruling and Order of Katutsi J. set aside.
  • Instruction fee fixed at shs. 6,000,000 substituted.
  • Costs of the appeal in the Supreme Court and the lower court awarded to the appellant.
  • Cross-appeal dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Advocate's Instruction Fee — Scale as Minimum Not Maximum
The figures in the scale to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules fix a minimum and not a maximum instruction fee; the final figure lies in the discretion of the Taxing Officer, to be exercised judicially on the merits of each case.
Costs — Taxation — Appellate Interference with the Taxing Officer's Discretion
An appellate court will interfere with a Taxing Officer's assessment of costs only in exceptional cases where there has been an error in principle, and not on a question solely of quantum, the Taxing Officer being more experienced in and better fitted for that task.
Costs — Taxation — Method of Assessment Above the Scale
Where a Taxing Officer decides that the scale should be exceeded, he does not arrive at the figure by multiplying the scale fee but by placing a fair value on the work and responsibility involved; multiplication factors are not a proper consideration.
Costs — Taxation — Relevant Considerations — Value of Subject Matter and Economic Conditions
In assessing an instruction fee the Taxing Officer may take into account, in varying degrees, the value of the suit property and prevailing economic conditions, alongside the amount of work done; costs must nonetheless be kept at a level that does not put justice beyond the reach of poor litigants while remunerating advocates adequately.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 1982, Sixth Schedule (Statutory Instrument No. 123 of 1982)

Cases cited (7)

  • Thomas James Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking (1961) E.A. 452
  • Steel & Petroleum (E.A.) Ltd v Uganda Sugar Factory Ltd (1970) E.A. 141
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11
  • Pardhan v Osman (1969) E.A. 528
  • Attorney-General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services (1972) E.A. 162
  • Simpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation [1964] 1 All E.R. 833

Cases citing this judgment (20)

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.

Roussos v GulamHussein (Civil Appeal 6 of 1995) [1996] UGSC 23 (4 March 1996)
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.