Wakilii

Samon Products Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Taxation Application No 104 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGTAT 13 · 2022 Costs Partially Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of costs following dismissal of preliminary objection in favor of respondent
Decision
Bill of costs partially allowed with adjustments; disbursements struck off for non-compliance with rules

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 tribunal taxed the respondent's bill of costs following a successful preliminary objection. Part A was allowed at UGX 1,947,000 inclusive of VAT after adjusting several items downward. Part B (disbursements) was struck off entirely for failure to indicate dates as required by Rule 47 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.

Outcome

Bill of costs partially allowed with adjustments; disbursements struck off for non-compliance with rules

Facts

The applicant filed an application challenging the respondent's decision to impose income tax and VAT. The application was dismissed for non-appearance on 3 March 2021. The applicant filed for reinstatement on 1 April 2022 and filed Application 104 of 2022 on 3 May 2022. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the applicant had not paid 30 percent as required under section 15 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. On 21 July 2022, the tribunal ruled the preliminary objection in favor of the respondent with costs. The respondent filed a bill of costs. A pre-taxation meeting was held but parties failed to reach agreement. The matter proceeded to taxation.

Issues

  1. Whether the items claimed in the respondent's bill of costs should be allowed and at what amounts.
  2. Whether the disbursements claimed in Part B of the bill of costs were properly particularized in accordance with the rules.

Orders

  • Item 1 and 2 of Part A of the bill of costs expunged.
  • Item 3 allowed at UGX 300,000.
  • Item 4 allowed at UGX 300,000 (UGX 50,000 taxed off).
  • Item 5 allowed at UGX 700,000 (UGX 100,000 taxed off).
  • Item 6 allowed at UGX 200,000.
  • Item 7 allowed at UGX 150,000 (UGX 100,000 taxed off).
  • Part A of the bill of costs taxed and allowed at UGX 1,947,000 inclusive of VAT.
  • Part B of the bill of costs struck off for failure to indicate dates.
  • Respondent at liberty to file fresh bill of costs for disbursements if still interested.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation of Costs — Discretion of Taxing Officer
A taxing officer must exercise discretionary powers judicially and in accordance with the rules laid down by law; if a taxing officer exercises discretion outside the set rules, such officer cannot be said to have used discretion judicially.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Bill of Costs — Disbursements — Particularization Requirements
A party claiming disbursements must clearly particularize them in the bill of costs and adduce evidence showing the dates on which the activity for which a claim is made took place; failure to indicate dates makes it difficult to determine whether the event ever occurred and warrants striking off the claim.
Civil Procedure — Costs — General Principle — Costs Follow the Event
Costs of any action, cause or matter shall follow the event unless the court for good cause orders otherwise; a successful party is generally entitled to costs but that entitlement is discretionary.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Air Services (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2003)
  • Rwantale v Rwabutoga [1988-1990] HCB 100
  • National Housing and Construction Corporation v Lira Municipal Council (1996) HCB 53

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Samon Products Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Taxation Application No 104 of 2022) 2022 UGTAT 13 (14 October 2022)
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.