Wakilii

Sandhau v Noble Builders (U) Limited & Another (Civil Application 59 of 2002)

Court of Appeal · [2003] UGCA 16 · 2003 Application Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation reference to a single Justice of the Court of Appeal from the decision of the taxing officer
Decision
Taxation reference allowed; taxing master's award of UGX 150,085,400 set aside and substituted with UGX 6,085,400

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 taxation reference, the single Justice held that the taxing officer erred in principle by basing the assessment of instruction fees on the assets of the company, where those assets were neither the subject of the litigation nor proved by evidence. Applying the established principles that there is no mathematical formula for assessing instruction fees and considering the factors under the Rules, the Court found the awarded amount unreasonable given that the appeal was simple, decided on a single ground, with an eleven-page lead judgment. The taxing master's award of UGX 150,085,400 was set aside and substituted with UGX 6,085,400. The application was allowed.

Outcome

Taxation reference allowed; taxing master's award of UGX 150,085,400 set aside and substituted with UGX 6,085,400

Facts

The applicant was the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2001. The respondents, as the successful parties, filed a bill of costs amounting to UGX 504,103,900, of which UGX 500,000,000 was claimed as instruction fees. On 25 July 2002 the Registrar, acting as taxing officer, taxed the bill and allowed it at UGX 150,085,400. Dissatisfied, the applicant brought a taxation reference seeking variation of the taxing officer's order. The central issue concerned the effect of company form No. 8 showing the applicant as director and shareholder in the first respondent, and whether the company's assets and liabilities, which were not the subject of the litigation, could form the basis for assessing instruction fees. No evidence had been adduced to prove the company's assets.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer erred in principle by basing the assessment of instruction fees on the assets of the company when no evidence was adduced to prove those assets.
  2. Whether the instruction fee allowed by the taxing officer was reasonable in the circumstances of the appeal.

Orders

  • The application is allowed.
  • The order of the taxing master is set aside.
  • The instruction fees are substituted with UGX 6,085,400.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Assessment of Instruction Fees
A taxing officer errs in principle by basing the assessment of instruction fees on the assets of a company where those assets were not the subject of the litigation and no evidence was adduced to prove them.
Costs — Taxation — Reasonableness of Instruction Fees
There is no mathematical formula for assessing instruction fees; the taxing officer must apply the factors set out in the Rules to the facts of the case, and an award is unreasonable where it does not reflect the simplicity and brevity of the matter.
Costs — Taxation Reference — Power of Single Justice to Vary
On a taxation reference under the Rules of the Court of Appeal, a single Justice may set aside an award made by the taxing officer that is based on an error of principle and substitute it with a reasonable amount.

Cases cited (4)

  • Premchand Raichand and Anor vs Quarry Services (No.3) 1972 EA 162
  • Performing Assets Recovery Trust v General Parts (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2000)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1999)
  • Kengrow v Megha Industries Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sandhau v Noble Builders (U) Limited & Another (Civil Application 59 of 2002) [2003] UGCA 16 (11 July 2003)
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.