Wakilii

Simbamanyo Estates Limited and Another v Equity Bank Uganda Limited and 2 Others (Civil Appeal 16 of 2021; Civil Appeal 24 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 134 · 2022 Appeal Allowed — Taxation Set Aside AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeals from taxation ruling on bills of costs following dismissal of two appeals and an application arising from an abated suit
Decision
Taxation ruling set aside and bills of costs remitted for fresh taxation

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 misdirected himself by treating the market value of the mortgaged properties as the subject matter of interlocutory appeals and applications concerning procedural issues (abatement, temporary injunction, stay of execution), rather than recognising that the subject matter was the procedural relief sought. The instruction fees awarded (shs. 600,000,000, 400,000,000, and 300,000,000) were manifestly excessive and based on an error of principle. The appeal was allowed, the taxation ruling set aside, and the bills of costs remitted for taxation de novo.

Outcome

Taxation ruling set aside and bills of costs remitted for fresh taxation

Facts

The appellants mortgaged two properties to the 1st respondent bank, which sold them to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The appellants filed suit seeking cancellation of the sale on grounds of undervalue. They obtained a temporary injunction restraining further transfer of the properties. The suit subsequently abated when the appellants failed to take out summons for directions within the prescribed time. The appellants filed applications to revise the abatement order and for stay of execution, and appealed the temporary injunction ruling. All appeals and one application were dismissed with costs. The respondents' bills of costs claimed instruction fees totalling over shs. 1.3 billion based on the market value of the properties (US$ 23 million). The Taxing Officer awarded shs. 600 million, 400 million, and 300 million respectively to the three respondents. The appellants appealed, arguing the awards were excessive.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer erred when he declined to tax costs claimed in respect of the abated suit.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer failed to justify the awards made.
  3. Whether the Taxing Officer misdirected himself when assessing the instruction fees.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Taxation ruling of 5th November 2021 set aside.
  • Three bills of costs remitted to the Registrar for taxation de novo.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Subject Matter — Interlocutory Proceedings
In taxation of costs for interlocutory appeals and applications, the subject matter is the procedural relief sought in those specific proceedings, not the value of the underlying property in dispute in the main suit from which they arose.
Taxation of Costs — Abatement — Costs Not Awarded
Where a suit abates by operation of law without a court order awarding costs, the Taxing Officer has no jurisdiction to tax costs in respect of the abated suit unless the court has made a specific order awarding such costs.
Taxation of Costs — Duty to Give Reasons
A Taxing Officer must provide reasons for taxation awards sufficient to enable parties to understand the basis of the decision and assess prospects of appeal, though the extent of detail required depends on the nature and complexity of the bill of costs.
Appeals from Taxation — Grounds for Interference
An appellate court will interfere with a Taxing Officer's discretionary award only where there has been an error in principle, a palpable and overriding error of fact, or where the award is so manifestly excessive or low as to amount to an injustice.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Interlocutory Matters
Where the value of the subject matter of interlocutory proceedings cannot be ascertained from the pleadings, the Taxing Officer must exercise discretion starting from the minimum prescribed fee and increasing it based on factors including the nature and importance of the matter, complexity, and the work done by counsel.
Taxation of Costs — Taxation De Novo
Taxation de novo will be ordered where the original taxation was based on a fundamental misapplication of law to the facts, provided that the interests of justice require it and no injustice will be occasioned to the other party.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (38)

  • Mohamed Kalisa v Gladys Nyangire Karumu and Two Others (S.C. Civil Reference No. 139 of 2013)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (S.C. Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Mbogo and Another v Shah [1968] 1 EA 93
  • 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
  • HK Shah and Another v Osman Allu (1974) 14 EACA 45
  • Patel v R Gottifried (1963) 20 EACA 81
  • Haji Nadin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (S.C. 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
  • R v Crown Court at Harrow, ex parte Dave [1994] 1 All ER 315
  • Stefan v General Medical Council [1999] 1 WLR 1293
  • Eagil Trust v Piggott-Brown [1985] 3 All ER 119
  • Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 2 QB 175
  • Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies [2000] 1 All ER 373
  • Jennifer Rwanyindo Aurelia and Another v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (C.A. Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)
  • National Pharmacy Ltd v Kampala City Council [1979] HCB 25
  • Harold v Smith (1860) 5 H & N 381
  • Fellowes, McNeil v Kansa General International Insurance Co (1997) 37 OR (3d) 464
  • Khan & Katiku Advocate v Central Electrical International Ltd (Misc. Application No. 41 of 2004) [2005] eKLR
  • Steel Construction and Petroleum Engineering (EA) Ltd v Uganda Sugar Factory Limited [1970] EA 141
  • Kabanda v Kananura Melvin Consulting Engineers (S.C. Civil Application No. 24 of 1993)
  • Makumbi and Another v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd [1990-1994] 1 EA 306
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (S.C. Civil Application No. 23 of 1999) [1999] EA 45
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd and Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and Others [1972] EA 162
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (S.C. Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Bashiri v Vitafoam (U) Ltd (S.C. Civil Application No. 13 of 1995)
  • Habre International Ltd [2000] EA 98
  • Nalumansi v Lule (S.C. 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
  • Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (S.C. Civil Application No. 3 of 1995)
  • Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 EA 92
  • Yesero Mugenyi v Philemon Wandera and Three Others (S.C. Civil Application No. 20 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Simbamanyo Estates Limited and Another v Equity Bank Uganda Limited and 2 Others (Civil Appeal 16 of 2021; Civil Appeal 24 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 134 (11 April 2022)
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.