Wakilii

Shumuk Investments Ltd. v Noble Builders (U) Ltd. & 2 Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2010)

High Court · [2011] UGCOMMC 17 · 2011 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of bills of costs by the Deputy Registrar
Decision
Instruction fees reduced; costs partly awarded to appellant

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases distinguished in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 0 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 7 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that the Deputy Registrar was justified in using US$ 2,900,000 as the value of the subject matter based on the appellant's own pleadings. However, the instruction fees awarded to the 2nd and 3rd respondents were excessive because the Deputy Registrar failed to demonstrate the thought process in arriving at the quantum and did not consider relevant factors such as the fact that the suit was withdrawn before trial, the minimal work done, and the short duration of engagement. The instruction fees were reduced from shs 59,187,500 to shs 25,000,000 for each respondent.

Outcome

Instruction fees reduced; costs partly awarded to appellant

Facts

The appellant brought an appeal challenging the Deputy Registrar's taxation of bills of costs that awarded shs 78,020,250 to the 2nd respondent and shs 64,338,500 to the 3rd respondent. The underlying suit (HCCS No. 300 of 2009) concerned a joint venture agreement and the sale of Plot M.418 at Nakawa Industrial Area. The appellant originally claimed specific performance of a right of first refusal to purchase the property at US$ 2,900,000, and later sought 5% commission on the purchase price of US$ 2,262,000 paid by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. The suit was withdrawn against the 2nd and 3rd respondents on 18 September 2009, approximately one month after they were joined as parties. The appellant contended that the Deputy Registrar erroneously based the instruction fee calculation on US$ 2,900,000 instead of 5% of US$ 2,262,000.

Issues

  1. What was the value of the subject matter in the suit?
  2. Was it proper for the learned Deputy Registrar to base her calculation of the instruction fee on that value?
  3. Whether the instruction fees awarded to the 2nd and 3rd respondents were excessive within the meaning of the Advocates Act and Advocates Remuneration Rules.

Orders

  • Appeal partly allowed.
  • Instruction fee for 2nd respondent reduced to shs 39,940,750.
  • Instruction fee for 3rd respondent reduced to shs 30,163,500.
  • Appellant to have one half of the costs of the appeal to be borne by the 2nd and 3rd respondents in equal proportions.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Value of Subject Matter — Pleadings as Basis
Where a party has stated the value of the subject matter in the original pleadings, that party will not be allowed to resile from that valuation at the taxation stage when it would be unjust or inequitable to do so, applying the principle that a party who has led another to believe and act on the faith of their words or conduct cannot later go back on what they have said.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Duty of Taxing Officer to Give Reasons
A taxing officer awarding instruction fees must demonstrate the thought process by first finding the appropriate scale fee, then considering whether the basic fee should be increased or reduced, and giving reasons for the decision. It is not sufficient for the taxing officer merely to cite the relevant rules without explaining the principles relied upon in arriving at the award.
Taxation of Costs — Excessive Instruction Fees — Factors to Consider
Instruction fees are manifestly excessive if they are out of proportion with the value and importance of the suit and work involved. Where a suit is withdrawn before trial, the taxing officer must consider the volume of work done, the responsibility attributable to the advocates, time spent, importance of the matter to the litigants, and reduce the scale fees accordingly.
Taxation of Costs — Judicial Function — Rational Criteria
Taxation of costs as a judicial function must be conducted regularly on the basis of rational criteria which are clearly expressed for the parties to perceive with ease. The taxing officer must provide only for reasonable compensation for work done, avoid unjust enrichment, apply the test of comparability, achieve objectivity, clearly identify elements of complexity, and determine with accuracy the amount of time, research and skill entailed in counsel's work.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fee Coverage — Incidental Work
The instruction fee should cover the advocate's work including taking instructions as well as other work necessary for presenting the case for trial or appeal. Items that fall within the scope of work covered by instruction fees should not be separately taxed.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (8)

  • Collins Architects v. Uganda Telecom HCMA 1017/2000
  • Alexander Jo Okello v. Kayondo & Co. Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Jobbing Field Properties Ltd. v. Lumonya & Bushara, Advocates, UCCLR 60
  • Makula International v. Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 11
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd. & Another v. Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & Others (No. 3) [1972] 1 EA 162
  • The Republic v. Minister for Agriculture Ex parte W'Njuguna & Others, [2006] 1 EA 356
  • Patrick Makumbi v. Sole Electrics (U) Ltd. (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994)
  • Ishanga Ndyanabo Longino v. Bitahwa Nyine (Court of Appeal Civil Reference No. 16 of 2003)

Cases citing this judgment (7)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Shumuk Investments Ltd. v Noble Builders (U) Ltd. & 2 Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2010) [2011] UGCommC 17 (23 March 2011)
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.