Wakilii

Rugumba v Attorney General of Republic of Rwanda (Taxation Cause No.2 of 2012)

East African Court of Justice · Rugumba v Attorney General of Republic of Rwanda (Taxation Cause No.2 of 2012) [2013] EACJ 153 (3 May 2013) · 2013 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of bill of costs following successful appeal (Appeal No. 1 of 2012) in the Appellate Division
Decision
Bill of costs substantially reduced from USD 4,725,189.51 claimed to USD 14,222.66 taxed and allowed

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

The Taxing Officer held that where the Eighth Schedule is silent on taxation items, the Second Schedule may be applied by analogy. Photocopies of receipts are inadmissible under the best evidence rule; only original receipts satisfy the requirement in paragraph 4(2) of the Eighth Schedule. Instruction fees must be assessed with discretion, considering the nature of the matter, interests of parties, and public interest, but must remain reasonable. The bill of costs was taxed at USD 14,222.66, significantly reduced from the USD 4,725,189.51 claimed.

Outcome

Bill of costs substantially reduced from USD 4,725,189.51 claimed to USD 14,222.66 taxed and allowed

Facts

The Applicant filed a bill of costs claiming USD 4,725,189.51 for costs incurred in conducting Appeal No. 1 of 2012 in the Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice. The claim included instruction fees, reimbursement for expenses including air tickets, travel, accommodation, meals, communication, and costs for filing and drawing documents. During oral submissions, counsel for the Applicant reduced the instruction fee claim from USD 4,000,000 to USD 210,000. The Respondent contested most items, particularly those supported only by photocopies of receipts rather than originals, and argued that the instruction fee remained excessive and arbitrary. The Respondent conceded air ticket expenses supported by original receipts totalling USD 1,867.

Issues

  1. What is the appropriate scale of costs to apply when taxing a bill of costs in the Appellate Division where the Eighth Schedule is silent on certain items?
  2. Whether photocopies of receipts are admissible as proof of disbursements under the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure.
  3. What is the appropriate instruction fee to award in a taxation matter following an appeal, taking into account the nature, complexity, and public interest considerations?

Orders

  • Instruction fee taxed at USD 10,000.
  • VAT at 18% on instruction fee: USD 1,800.
  • Costs for filing, perusals, photocopying, drawing of documents, and court attendances taxed at USD 2,422.66.
  • Grand total taxed at USD 14,222.66 (United States Dollars Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Two Sixty Six Cents Only).

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Application of Schedules — Silence in Eighth Schedule
Where the Eighth Schedule of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, which governs taxation in the Appellate Division, is silent on a particular item such as perusal of documents, the Taxing Officer may apply by analogy the scale provided in the Second Schedule for the First Instance Division, there being no convincing reason why the scales should differ.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Drawing of Documents — Reply to Memorandum of Appeal
Where the Eighth Schedule provides a scale of costs for drawing a Memorandum of Appeal but is silent on the scale for drawing a Reply to the Memorandum of Appeal, the same scale should apply to both, as the intellectual labour involved in drawing the Memorandum and its Reply is equivalent.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Best Evidence Rule — Receipts for Disbursements
Under paragraph 4(2) of the Eighth Schedule of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, which requires that receipts for disbursements be produced to the taxing officer at the time of taxation, the word 'receipt' means an original receipt and does not extend to photocopies, even uncertified photocopies. The best evidence rule requires production of primary evidence, and photocopies lacking certification are inadmissible to prove disbursements.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Discretion of Taxing Officer
A taxing officer is entitled to exercise discretion in assessing instruction fees, taking into account the nature and importance of the matter, the interests of the parties, the general conduct of proceedings, and all relevant circumstances. The taxing officer has a duty to the public to ensure that costs do not rise above a reasonable level.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Public Interest — Use of Taxpayers' Money
Where costs are to be paid from public funds, public interest considerations require scrutiny of the issues leading to the award of costs, not merely the quantum. However, public interest does not require the court to reduce costs to a level that would make ordinary citizens suffer; rather, it requires that costs remain reasonable and justified by the nature and complexity of the work done.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Procedure — Full Bench — Complexity and Public Importance
Under Rule 102 of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, a matter may be heard by a full bench of the Appellate Division either because of the public importance of the matter or because of conflict or other complexity in the applicable law. The words 'or' and 'other' are construed disjunctively, meaning that public importance alone, without complexity, may justify a full bench hearing.

Legislation cited (6)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, Second Schedule
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, Eighth Schedule
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, Seventh Schedule
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, Rule 102
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, Eighth Schedule para 4(2)
  • Interpretations of Laws Act, CAP 1 (Tanzania) s.13

Cases cited (3)

  • Joreth Limited v Kigano & Associates (Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1999)
  • Khatijabai Jiwa Hasham v Zainabu daughter of Chamdu Nansi [1957] EA 255
  • Attorney General of Kenya v Prof. Anyang'nyong'o and Others (Appeal No. 1 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rugumba v Attorney General of Republic of Rwanda (Taxation Cause No.2 of 2012) [2013] EACJ 153 (3 May 2013)
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.