Wakilii

Sebalu v Secretary General of East African Community and Another (Reference 1 of 2011)

East African Court of Justice · [2012] EACJ 1 · 2012 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of costs following Reference No. 1 of 2010 in which the Applicant was awarded costs against the 1st and 2nd Respondents
Decision
Bill of costs reduced from USD 14,357,669.10 to USD 105,068.20

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 reduced the claimed instruction fee from USD 10 million to USD 65,000, finding the original claim excessive and unreasonable. The matter was not complex and was distinguishable from more intricate cases. A getting up fee of USD 16,250 (one quarter of instruction fee) was awarded per Rule 2(1) of the Second Schedule. VAT at 18% was allowed. Many items in the bill were taxed off for lack of receipts or because they were covered under instruction fees. Total costs taxed at USD 105,068.20 to be shared equally between the two Respondents.

Outcome

Bill of costs reduced from USD 14,357,669.10 to USD 105,068.20

Facts

Hon. Sitenda Sebalu filed a bill of costs totaling USD 14,357,669.10 for costs incurred in conducting Reference No. 1 of 2010 before the East African Court of Justice. The Applicant had been awarded costs against the 1st and 2nd Respondents in that Reference. The bill included an instruction fee of USD 10 million, VAT, getting up fees, and numerous disbursements for travel, accommodation, photocopying, and court attendances between Kampala and Arusha. The Respondents conceded to some items but objected to many others on grounds of lack of supporting receipts, excessive amounts, and improper claims. The Applicant's counsel argued the matter was of great international and political importance, involved novel legal points, and required extensive research and preparation.

Issues

  1. What is the appropriate amount to be taxed for instruction fees in this matter?
  2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to a getting up fee?
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to VAT on the instruction fee?
  4. Which items in the bill of costs should be allowed and at what amounts?

Orders

  • Instruction fee taxed at USD 65,000.00
  • Getting up fee awarded at USD 16,250.00
  • VAT at 18% awarded at USD 14,625.00
  • Reimbursable disbursements awarded at USD 9,193.20
  • Total bill taxed at USD 105,068.20
  • Costs to be shared equally between the 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Discretion of Taxing Officer
In assessing instruction fees, the Taxing Officer is entitled to exercise discretion to assess such fee as he considers just, taking into account the nature and importance of the matter, the interest of parties, the general conduct of proceedings, and any other relevant circumstances.
Taxation of Costs — Disbursements — Requirement for Receipts
Rule 4 of the Second Schedule requires that receipts for disbursements shall be produced to the taxing officer at the time of taxation. This is a mandatory requirement. Boarding passes and invoices without proof of payment are insufficient evidence of expenditure.
Taxation of Costs — Perusal Fees — Own Documents
Perusal fees can only be charged on documents received from other parties, not on documents drawn by counsel himself. Perusal of own documents is covered under instruction fees chargeable under Rule 9(3) of the Second Schedule.
Taxation of Costs — Getting Up Fee — Entitlement
A party is entitled to a getting up fee when his advocate gets up or prepares a case for trial, calculated at one quarter of the instruction fee as per Rule 2(1) of the Second Schedule Scale of Charges.
Taxation of Costs — Reasonableness — Excessive Claims
An award of costs must be reasonable, affordable, and should not have the effect of deterring litigants from seeking remedy in court. A claim for instruction fees that is excessive and obnoxious will be reduced to a reasonable amount having regard to the complexity of the matter and comparable awards in similar cases.

Cases cited (6)

  • Prof. Anyang' Nyong'o and Others Vs Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya and Others
  • Calist Mwatela and 2 Others Vs East African Community
  • Mortem Holdings (EA) Limited Vs the Kenya Ports Authority
  • Premchand Limited and Another, 1972 East Africa page 162
  • James Katabazi's case
  • Calist Andrew Mwatela

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sebalu v Secretary General of East African Community and Another (Reference 1 of 2011) [2012] EACJ 1 (20 January 2012)
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.