Wakilii

Simba Properties Investments Co. Limited and 5 Others v Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and 6 Others (Civil Appeal 2 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 60 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Taxation Application No. 0235 of 2022 challenging the Taxing Officer's award of instruction fees
Decision
Appeal dismissed and Taxing Officer's award of instruction fees upheld

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 High Court dismissed the appeal against the Taxing Officer's award of instruction fees. The court held that appellants lacked locus standi because the costs order was made against their advocates personally, not against the appellants themselves. On the merits, the court found that the Taxing Officer properly exercised her discretion, applied correct principles, and the award of UGX 20,000,000 was not manifestly excessive given the complexity of the matter, multiplicity of parties and issues, and the reprehensible conduct that justified the personal costs order against counsel.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed and Taxing Officer's award of instruction fees upheld

Facts

The appellants filed Miscellaneous Application No. 414 of 2022 seeking a temporary injunction, which was heard and dismissed with costs on 24 May 2022. The 1st to 4th respondents filed a bill of costs which was taxed on 5 December 2022 and allowed at UGX 22,030,500 by ruling dated 11 January 2023. The costs order in the underlying application had been made personally against the appellants' advocates rather than against the appellants themselves, as the court found it a rare and exceptional case where the advocates' conduct warranted such an order. The Taxing Officer awarded instruction fees of UGX 20,000,000 considering the volume of submissions, pleadings, and number of parties involved. The appellants appealed the taxation award as manifestly excessive and unfair. The appeal was filed on 3 February 2023, 23 days after the taxation ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer exercised her discretion judiciously in awarding instruction fees of UGX 20,000,000.
  2. Whether the appellants have locus standi to appeal the taxation award given that the costs order was made against their advocates personally.
  3. Whether the instruction fees awarded were manifestly excessive, unfair, and unreasonable.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Locus Standi — Appeals from Taxation — Costs Awarded Personally Against Counsel
Where a costs order is made personally against advocates rather than against the litigants, the litigants lack locus standi to appeal the taxation of that bill of costs because they are not persons directly affected by the taxation award, having been expressly exculpated from liability.
Taxation of Costs — Appellate Intervention — Exercise of Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's exercise of discretion in awarding instruction fees unless the Taxing Officer acted upon a wrong principle, allowed extraneous matters to guide the decision, mistook the facts, failed to take into account material considerations, or the award is so manifestly excessive or low as to be unreasonable or plainly unjust.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Factors for Consideration
In determining instruction fees, a Taxing Officer must consider multiple factors holistically including: the complexity of the matter, the volume of work done, the multiplicity of parties and issues, the skill and experience of advocates, the value of the subject matter where ascertainable, the general level of remuneration necessary to attract recruits to the profession, and the need to keep costs at a reasonable level to ensure access to justice.
Costs Against Counsel Personally — Punitive Nature — Quantum Assessment
Unlike ordinary party-and-party costs which are compensatory, costs awarded against counsel personally serve a punitive and deterrent purpose due to reprehensible conduct. The quantum of such costs should be sufficient to deter similar conduct and protect the integrity of the profession, taking into account the unique circumstances of the violation and the advocate's profile, and may justifiably exceed amounts typically awarded in ordinary taxation.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Advocates Act s.62
  • Advocates Act s.62(1)
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations Regulation 3
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations Regulation 4
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 6th Schedule Item 9(2)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 6th Schedule Item 1(e)(vii)(b)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 6th Schedule Item 9(2)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 6th Schedule Item 1(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Evidence Act

Cases cited (42)

  • H & G Advocates v International Aids Vaccine Initiative and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Taxation Appeal No. 586 of 2021)
  • Western Highland Creameries and Another v. Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (No2)
  • Makumbi and Another v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd [1990-1994] 2 EA 306
  • Bank of Uganda v Sudhir and Meera Investment (Tax Reference No. 1 of 2023)
  • Electoral Commission v Kidega Nabinson (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2016)
  • Mohamed Kalisa v Gladys Nyangire Karumu and Two Others (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 139 of 2013)
  • Hamam Singh Bhogal v Jadva Karsan (1953) 20 EACA 17
  • Baku Raphael v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 50
  • Lisa H v. State Board of Education 67 Pa. Cmwlth. 350 (1982)
  • William Penn Parking Garage v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168 (1975)
  • Yusufu v Nokrach [1971] EA 104
  • In re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1971] HCB 12
  • Tullow Uganda Ltd and Another v Jackson Wabyona (Miscellaneous Application No. 197 of 2017)
  • Mohammed Alibhai v W E Bukenya Mukasa and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Mbogo and Another v Shah [1968] 1 EA 93
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • National Insurance Corporation v Mugenyi and Company Advocates [1987] HCB 28
  • Wasswa J Hannington and Another v Ochola Maria Onyango and Three Others [1992-93] HCB 103
  • Devji v Jinabhai (1934) 1 EACA 89
  • H K Shah and Another v Osman Allu (1974) 14 EACA 45
  • Patel v R Gottifried (1963) 20 EACA 81
  • Haji Nadin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)
  • Sheikh Jama v Dubat Farah [1959] 1 EA 789
  • Hussein Janmohamed and Sons v Twentsche Overseas Trading Co Ltd [1967] 1 EA 287
  • Thomas James Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] 1 EA 492
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999) [1999] EA 45
  • Steel Construction and Petroleum Engineering (EA) Ltd v Uganda Sugar Factory Limited [1970] EA 141
  • Kabanda v Kananura Melvin Consulting Engineers (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 24 of 1993)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd and Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and Others [1972] EA 162
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Bashiri v Vitafoam (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 13 of 1995)
  • Habre International Ltd [2000] EA 98
  • Nalumansi v Lule (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 12 of 1992)
  • Hashjam v Zanab [1957] 1 EA 255
  • First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Others [2002] 1 EA 64
  • Republic v Minister of Agriculture and 2 Others Ex parte Samuel Muchiri W'Njuguna and Others [2006] 1 EA 359
  • Cooper and Another v Nevill and Another [1959] 1 EA 74
  • Malkinson v Trim [2003] 2 All ER 356
  • Fullerton v. Matsqui, 74 B.C.L.R. (2d) 311, 12 C.P.C. (3d) 319, 19 B.C.A.C. 284, 34 W.A.C. 284
  • Myers v Elman [1940] AC 282
  • Harley v McDonald [2001] 2 AC 678

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Simba Properties Investments Co. Limited and 5 Others v Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and 6 Others (Civil Appeal 2 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 60 (10 July 2023)
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.