Sanlam General Insurance (U) Limited v Royal Transit Limited (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2018)

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.

Holding

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the taxing master erred in law by exercising discretion he did not have when awarding instruction fees of UGX 10,000,000. The sixth schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules mandates that instruction fees be calculated according to a prescribed formula where the value of the subject matter can be ascertained. The taxing master should have applied the mandatory formula under Item 1(a)(iii) of the sixth schedule, not discretionary principles from outdated case law.

Outcome

Bill of costs remitted to taxing master for fresh taxation in accordance with statutory formula

Facts

Sanlam General Insurance (formerly Lion Assurance Company Limited) filed a summary suit against Royal Transit Limited for recovery of UGX 226,378,189 as outstanding premium under a comprehensive insurance policy. The appellant conceded to the respondent's application for leave to appear and defend and withdrew the suit before the respondent filed its written statement of defence. The respondent presented a bill of costs amounting to UGX 32,766,979. The registrar taxed the bill and allowed UGX 12,625,480, awarding UGX 10,000,000 as instruction fees. The appellant appealed the taxation award, contending that the registrar erred in not applying the mandatory formula prescribed in the sixth schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules.

Issues

1. Whether the learned Registrar/taxing master erred in law and misdirected himself in ignoring the scale or formula laid down under the sixth schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules SI 267-4, thus arriving at a wrong figure of UGX 10,000,000 as instruction fees.
2. Whether the learned Registrar/taxing master erroneously exercised judicial discretion and misdirected himself in increasing the instruction fee beyond the instruction fees provided for under the sixth schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules SI 267-4.
3. Whether the award was reasonable, proportionate and consistent compensation and remuneration for work done.

Orders

• The taxation award of the Registrar for a sum of Uganda Shillings 10,000,000 as instruction fees in addition to VAT of UGX 1,914,480 in the certificate of taxation of UGX 12,625,480 is set aside for being illegal, inaccurate and penal.
• The bill of costs is referred back to the taxing master to be taxed afresh and adjusted in accordance with The Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs)(Amendment) Rules SI 267-4.
• Each party to bear its own costs in this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Advocates Act s.62(1)
• Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeal and References) Regulations Rule 3
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules SI 267-4 Rule 37
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules SI 267-4 Sixth Schedule Item 1(a)(iii)
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules SI 267-4 Sixth Schedule Item 1(a)(iv)
• Advocates Act s.55(3)

Cases cited (10)

• Shumuk Springs Development Ltd v Mwebesa Katatumba and Six Others (High Court Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2012)
• Western Highland Creameries Limited & Another v Stanbic Bank of Uganda Limited (Taxation Appeal No. 10 of 2013)
• Premchand Raichand Limited v Quarry Services of East Africa Limited and Others (1972) 1 EA 16
• Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani and Nasmudin Habib Virani (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
• Jobbing Field Properties Ltd v Lumonya Bushara & Co. Advocates (High Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2018)
• Bunjo Jonathan v KCB Bank Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 174 of 2014)
• Manharlal Thakkar v Bahati Mark & Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 188 of 2013)
• Patrick Makumbi & Another v Sole Electrics Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
• Jobbing Field Properties Ltd v Lumonya Bushara & Co. Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2008)
• Alexander Okello v Kayondo and Co. Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)

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