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 154 (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 awarded

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 applied the Second Schedule scale where the Eighth Schedule was silent, rejected uncertified photocopies of receipts as inadmissible under the best evidence rule, and awarded instruction fees of USD 10,000 plus VAT and other taxed costs totalling USD 14,222.66, significantly reducing the claimed amount of over USD 4 million.

Outcome

Bill of costs substantially reduced from USD 4,725,189.51 claimed to USD 14,222.66 awarded

Facts

The Applicant, through counsel Mr. Rwakafuuzi, 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. The Respondent, represented by State Attorney Mr. Malala, contested most items except those supported by original receipts. During oral submissions, the Applicant reduced the instruction fee claim from USD 4,000,000 to USD 210,000. The Respondent argued that many claimed expenses were supported only by uncertified photocopies and that the instruction fee remained excessive. The matter came before Prof. Dr. John Eudes Ruhangisa as Taxing Officer for determination.

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?

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 awarded: USD 14,222.66 (United States Dollars Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Two Sixty Six Cents Only).

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Application of Scales Where Rules Are Silent
Where the Eighth Schedule governing taxation in the Appellate Division is silent on a particular item such as perusal of documents, the Taxing Officer may apply the scale provided in the Second Schedule for the First Instance Division, as there is no convincing reason why the scales would differ between divisions for the same type of work.
Taxation of Costs — Best Evidence Rule — Admissibility of Photocopies
Under paragraph 4(2) of the Eighth Schedule of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, receipts for disbursements must be produced to the taxing officer at the time of taxation. The word 'receipt' does not extend to include uncertified photocopies. The best evidence rule requires original or certified copies, and uncertified photocopies lack credibility and are inadmissible as proof of disbursements.
Taxation of Costs — Assessment of Instruction Fees — Discretion of Taxing Officer
The 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.
Taxation of Costs — Complexity of Matter — Full Bench Hearing
The fact that a matter was heard by a full bench of five judges does not automatically establish that the matter was complex. Under Rule 102 of the East African Court of Justice Rules, a full bench may be convened due to public importance of the matter or conflict or other complexity in the law. The words 'or' and 'other' are construed disjunctively, meaning factors other than complexity may justify a full bench.

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 154 (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.