Wakilii

Secretary General of East African Community v Zziwa (Taxation Reference No.1 of 2019)

East African Court of Justice · [2020] EACJ 45 · 2020 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation reference challenging the taxed bill of costs awarded by the Taxing Officer
Decision
Instruction fees reduced from USD 251,312.58 to USD 140,000; getting up fees set at USD 35,000

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 Court held that the Taxing Officer failed to adequately consider the principle of consistency in awarding instruction fees and placed undue weight on the novelty of the proceedings rather than their complexity. The Court reduced the instruction fees from USD 251,312.58 to USD 140,000 plus getting up fees of USD 35,000. The Court declined to interfere with the award of VAT and disbursements. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Instruction fees reduced from USD 251,312.58 to USD 140,000; getting up fees set at USD 35,000

Facts

The Secretary General of the East African Community challenged a taxation ruling awarding instruction fees of USD 251,312.58 (which with VAT and getting up fees totaled USD 359,376.99) to Margaret Zziwa. The taxation arose from Reference No. 17 of 2014, which involved the removal of the sitting Speaker of the East African Legislative Assembly. The Applicant argued that the Taxing Officer failed to apply proper principles, took irrelevant matters into account, and made mathematical errors. The Respondent defended the award as fair and reasonable given the complexity and novelty of the underlying reference, which involved groundbreaking precedents including the first award of monetary damages by the EACJ.

Issues

  1. Whether the instruction fees awarded by the Taxing Officer were excessive and arrived at by applying erroneous principles.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer made a mathematical error in totaling the sums awarded.
  3. Whether the application was procedurally competent despite reference to inapplicable rules.
  4. Whether the failure to attach the Bill of Costs, Order, and Proceedings was fatal to the application.

Orders

  • Taxation Reference allowed.
  • Instruction fees awarded by the Taxing Officer on 4 June 2019 set aside.
  • Instruction fees of USD 140,000 awarded.
  • Getting up fees of USD 35,000 (one quarter of instruction fees) awarded.
  • No interference with other aspects of the Taxing Officer's ruling, including VAT and disbursements.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Principles Governing Taxation
The principles governing taxation of costs are well settled: costs must not confine access to courts to the wealthy; a successful litigant should be fairly reimbursed; the general level of remuneration must attract recruits to the profession; there should be consistency in awards; there is no mathematical formula; the taxing officer has discretion which must be exercised judicially; and the court will only interfere when the award is so high or so low as to amount to an injustice.
Taxation of Costs — Grounds for Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion
A court hearing a reference against a taxation ruling will not interfere with the Taxing Officer's discretion merely because it would have awarded a different figure. Interference is justified only when the amount taxed is manifestly excessive or deficient as to amount to an injustice, or the Taxing Officer followed a wrong principle or applied wrong considerations.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Principle of Consistency
In determining instruction fees, a Taxing Officer must give adequate consideration to the principle of consistency by examining the entire line of authorities and consistent levels of awards, rather than relying solely on one exceptional case. Undue weight on the novelty of proceedings as distinct from the complexity of jurisprudence developed constitutes an error of principle.
Taxation References — Procedural Requirements
A taxation reference brought under Rule 130(1) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 does not require attachment of the Bill of Costs, Order, or Proceedings where these documents form part of the Court's own record. The Court may call for such documents suo moto if necessary for determination.
Court Rules — Inherent Powers — Curing Procedural Defects
Where an application substantially complies with the correct rule but includes superfluous references to inapplicable rules, the Court may exercise its inherent powers under Rule 4 to deem the erroneous references superfluous and proceed with the application in the interests of justice.

Legislation cited (11)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2013 r.114
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2013 r.84(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2013 r.84(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2013 r.85(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 r.136
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 r.130(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 r.130(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 r.4
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 r.129
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 Third Schedule r.9
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 r.127

Cases cited (7)

  • Kenya Ports Authority v Modern Holdings Limited (Taxation Reference No. 4 of 2010)
  • Democratic Party and Another v Attorney General of Uganda (Taxation Reference No. 3 of 2013)
  • Njuba v Sebalu (Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2013)
  • Twinobusinge Saverino v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 27 of 2013)
  • Premchand Raichand Limited and Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Limited and Others (No. 3) (1972) EA 162
  • Anyang Nyong'o and Others v Attorney General of Kenya and Others (Taxation Reference No. 5 of 2008)
  • Alcon International Limited v Standard Chartered Bank (Uganda) and Others (Taxation Reference No. 1 of 2014)

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 Reference No.1 of 2019) [2020] EACJ 45 (19 June 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.