Wakilii

Sebalu v Secretary General of East African Community (Taxation Cause No.4 of 2013)

East African Court of Justice · [2015] EACJ 115 · 2015 Costs Taxed and Awarded AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of costs following dismissal of an application for extension of time to file an appeal
Decision
Bill of costs taxed and allowed at USD 16,010

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 awarded instruction fees of USD 6,000 plus VAT in a taxation following dismissal of an application for extension of time. The application was not complex and involved settled law on extensions of time. Getting up fees were awarded at one quarter of instruction fees. Disbursements without receipts were disallowed under the mandatory requirement of Rule 4.

Outcome

Bill of costs taxed and allowed at USD 16,010

Facts

The Applicant sought taxation of a bill of costs totalling USD 307,349.04 following his success in Application No. 9 of 2012, where the Court dismissed the Respondent's application for extension of time to file an appeal from a judgment delivered on 30 June 2011. The Respondent had sought extension of time under Rule 4 of the EACJ Rules. The Application was heard on 22 January 2013 and dismissed on 14 February 2013 with costs to the Respondent (now Applicant in taxation). The parties agreed on most items in the bill save for instruction fees and getting up fees, which were heavily disputed, and certain disbursement items lacking receipts.

Issues

  1. What instruction fees should be allowed in the taxation of costs for an application for extension of time that was dismissed?
  2. What getting up fees should be allowed as a proportion of instruction fees?
  3. Whether disbursements claimed without supporting receipts should be allowed?

Orders

  • Instruction fees taxed at USD 6,000 plus VAT at 18% (USD 1,080).
  • Getting up fees taxed at USD 1,740 (one quarter of instruction fees).
  • Agreed items taxed at USD 7,187.
  • Items 30, 31, 32 and 41 taxed off for lack of receipts.
  • Bill taxed at grand total of USD 16,010.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Exercise of Discretion
In awarding instruction fees under Rule 9 of the Third Schedule to the EACJ Rules of Procedure, the taxing officer must consider the nature, importance and complexity of the matter, the interest of parties, other costs allowed, general conduct of proceedings, and all other relevant circumstances. The discretion must be exercised on fixed principles according to rules of reason and justice, not arbitrarily or capriciously.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Complexity of Matter
Where an application involves settled law on established principles and does not require extensive research or consideration of new jurisprudential matters, instruction fees should reflect the straightforward nature of the application rather than the importance or complexity of the underlying reference that gave rise to it.
Taxation of Costs — Getting Up Fees
Getting up fees are properly awarded at one quarter of the instruction fees allowed, in accordance with Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the EACJ Rules of Procedure.
Taxation of Costs — Disbursements — Proof Required
Under Rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the EACJ Rules of Procedure, receipts for disbursements must be produced to the taxing officer and copies served on the other party at least 14 days before taxation. This is a mandatory requirement and disbursements without receipts will be taxed off.

Legislation cited (4)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 4
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Third Schedule Rule 9
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Second Schedule Rule 2(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Second Schedule Rule 4

Cases cited (12)

  • James Katabazi & 21 Others v The Secretary General of the East African Community (Taxation No. 5 of 2008)
  • Calist Mwatela & 2 Others v The East African Community (Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2006)
  • Prof Anyang Nyongo & Others v The Attorney General of Kenya (Taxation No. 2 of 2010)
  • Modern Holdings East African Ltd v Kenya Ports Authority (Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2010)
  • Attorney General of Kenya v Prof Anyang Nyongo & 10 Others (Appeal No. 1 of 2009)
  • Kenya Ports Authority v Modern Holdings Ltd (Taxation Reference No. 4 of 2010)
  • Paul K Ssemowogerere & Zachary Olum v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 5 of 2001)
  • Zachary Olum & Another v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 1 of 2004)
  • Zuberi V Returneing Officer and Another 1973 E.A 33
  • Baldan Vs R. MC, Baldan Vs R. Mohamed Osman, 1969 EA528
  • Premchand Limited and Another Vs Quarry Services of EA Limited 1972 EA 162
  • Ondieki v Samuel Mageto (Civil Appeal No. Nai. 248 of 2003)

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 (Taxation Cause No.4 of 2013) [2015] EACJ 115 (20 March 2015)
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.