Wakilii

Secretary General of East African Community v Zziwa (Taxation Cause No.1 of 2019; Taxation Cause No.2 of 2019)

East African Court of Justice · [2020] EACJ 44 · 2020 Taxation References Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated taxation references from rulings of the Taxing Officer in Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2019 and Taxation Cause No. 2 of 2019, both arising from appeals in which the Respondent was awarded costs with a certificate for two counsel.
Decision
Taxation references partly allowed. Instruction fees reduced in both taxation causes. Other items in the bills of costs not contested remain as taxed.

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 East African Court of Justice Appellate Division held that consolidated taxation references were competent despite initial procedural defects cured by supplementary affidavits. In the absence of the Eighth Schedule to the Court Rules, taxation of costs from the Appellate Division must be conducted according to universally accepted principles reflected in Rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule. The Taxing Officer erred in calculating instruction fees where a certificate for two counsel was granted by applying the taxation percentage to the combined total rather than to individual counsel fees before adding the one-third increase for additional counsel. The instruction fees were accordingly reduced from USD 73,830 to USD 53,097 in Taxation Cause No. 01 of 2019 and from USD 296,560 to USD 174,327 in Taxation Cause No. 02 of 2019.

Outcome

Taxation references partly allowed. Instruction fees reduced in both taxation causes. Other items in the bills of costs not contested remain as taxed.

Facts

The Respondent was awarded costs with a certificate for two counsel in Appeal No. 07 of 2015 and Appeal No. 02 of 2017, both arising from Reference No. 17 of 2014 concerning her removal as Speaker of the East African Legislative Assembly. The Taxing Officer taxed the bills of costs at USD 73,830 in Taxation Cause No. 01 of 2019 and USD 296,560 in Taxation Cause No. 02 of 2019. The Applicant challenged these awards as excessive, arguing the Taxing Officer misdirected himself in calculating instruction fees and failed to properly apply Rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule. The Applicant sought to have the taxation awards set aside or varied. The matters were consolidated for hearing before the Appellate Division.

Issues

  1. Whether or not the consolidated References are competent.
  2. What is the effect of the absence of the 8th Schedule in the Rules of this Court and as a result thereof how should taxation in the Appellate Division be done.
  3. Whether the instruction fees and monies that flowed from them that were awarded by the Taxing Officer against the Applicant were excessive based on a misdirection and were inconsistent with Rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2013.

Orders

  • The consolidated References are competent.
  • Instruction fees in Taxation Cause No. 01 of 2019 are allowed at USD 36,467.
  • Instruction fees in Taxation Cause No. 02 of 2019 are allowed at USD 149,467.
  • The Respondent's costs in Taxation Cause No. 01 of 2019 are allowed in the aggregate sum of USD 53,097 as opposed to USD 73,830.
  • The Respondent's costs in Taxation Cause No. 02 of 2019 are allowed in the aggregate sum of USD 174,327 as opposed to USD 296,560.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Competence of Taxation References — Procedural Defects Cured by Supplementary Affidavits
Where a taxation reference is initially filed without the required supporting documents such as the record of proceedings, bill of costs, order and decree, but the court exercises its inherent powers to permit the filing of supplementary affidavits containing the missing documents, the reference is rendered competent and cannot be struck out as empty.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Absence of Eighth Schedule — Application of Universally Accepted Principles
In the absence of the Eighth Schedule to the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013, which should govern taxation of costs in the Appellate Division, costs must be taxed in accordance with universally accepted principles of taxation, including those reflected in Rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule, which requires that fees be reasonable having regard to the amount involved, the nature, importance and complexity of the matter, the interests of the parties, other costs to be allowed, the general conduct of proceedings, the person to bear the costs, and all other relevant circumstances.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Universally Accepted Principles — Judicial Discretion and Reasonableness
The taxation of costs is an exercise of judicial discretion that can never be made an exact science or a matter of specialized accountancy. The onus lies on the party claiming costs to demonstrate that the costs incurred are proper and reasonable in the circumstances. Costs must not be manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate, and the taxing officer owes it to the public to ensure that costs do not rise above a reasonable level so as to deny access to justice.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Certificate for Two Counsel — Correct Method of Calculation
Where a court has granted a certificate for two counsel, the correct approach to calculating instruction fees is to first determine the reasonable fee for one counsel, then apply Rule 9(4)(vii) proviso (ii) of the Third Schedule which provides that the instruction fee shall be increased by one-third for the additional counsel. It is erroneous to double the instruction fee and then apply a percentage reduction to the combined total.
Civil Procedure — Taxation References — Grounds for Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion
An appellate court will only interfere with a taxing officer's award of costs where the applicant proves on a balance of probabilities that either the amount taxed was manifestly excessive or so manifestly deficient as to amount to an injustice, or that the taxing officer followed a wrong principle, misdirected himself in law, misapprehended the facts, took into account matters he should not have considered, failed to take into account matters he should have considered, or reached a decision that was plainly wrong.

Legislation cited (15)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 114
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 84(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 84(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 85(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 113(3)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 9(2) Third Schedule
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 9(4)(vii) Third Schedule
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 1(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 21(5)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 88
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 111(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 111(2)
  • East African Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act 2016 s.20
  • Treaty Establishing the East African Community Article 69(1)
  • Treaty Establishing the East African Community Article 38

Cases cited (24)

  • Othieno v Ogoola [2001] EA 201
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696
  • Banco Arabe Espano v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 08 of 1998)
  • Kabenge Advocates v Mineral Access Systems (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 565 of 2011)
  • Kenya Ports Authority v Modern Holdings EA Ltd (Taxation Reference No. 4 of 2010)
  • Plaxeda Rugumba v Attorney General (Taxation Cause No. 02 of 2012)
  • Secretary General of the East African Community v Angela Amudo (Taxation Cause No. 01 of 2016)
  • Alcon International Limited v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda and two others (Taxation Cause No. 01 of 2012)
  • Alcon International Limited v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda and two others (Reference No. 01 of 2014)
  • Marie Mahony v KCR Heating Supplies [2007] IEHC 61
  • Cafolla v Kikenny [2010] IEHC 24
  • Attorney General of Kenya v Prof Anyang' Nyong'o & 10 others (Appeal No. 01 of 2019)
  • Pemchand Raichad Ltd & another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & others [1972] EA 162
  • Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
  • Doyle v Deasy & Co [2003] IEHC 617
  • Democratic Party, Mukasa Mbidde v Attorney General of Uganda (Taxation Reference No. 06 of 2011)
  • Mbogo v Shah [1968] EA 93
  • Twinobusingye Severino v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 47 of 2011)
  • Joreth Limited v Kigano and Associates [2002] 1 EA 92
  • James Katabazi & 21 others v Secretary General of the East African Community & Attorney General Uganda (Taxation Cause No. 05 of 2008)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community and Attorney General of Uganda (Taxation Cause No. 01 of 2011)
  • Democratic Party & Fred Mbidde v Attorney General of Uganda (Taxation Cause No. 01 of 2012)
  • Irish Independent Newspaper Ltd v Irish Press Ltd [1939] I.R. 371
  • Smyth v Tunney (1993) 1 I.R. 451

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Secretary General of East African Community v Zziwa (Taxation Cause No.1 of 2019; Taxation Cause No.2 of 2019) [2020] EACJ 44 (16 October 2020)
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.