Wakilii

Singh v Mavji (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1950)

East African Court of Appeal · [1952] EACA 297 · 1952 Objection Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Objection to Taxing Officer's decision on bill of costs following dismissal of civil appeal from First Class Magistrate's Court
Decision
Objection to taxation succeeded; certain items disallowed and instruction fee remitted for retaxation by another Taxing Officer

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 letters concerning arrangements between advocates regarding payment of decretal amounts are not party and party costs. A Taxing Officer exercising discretion must record reasons for decisions. The instruction fee of Sh. 1,500 allowed for a simple appeal valued at Sh. 500 was excessive and must be retaxed. Attendance at Court when an appeal is not reached cannot be claimed as conducting the appeal. Objection allowed with costs.

Outcome

Objection to taxation succeeded; certain items disallowed and instruction fee remitted for retaxation by another Taxing Officer

Facts

The respondent successfully defended an appeal from the First Class Magistrate's Court concerning a building contract dispute valued at Sh. 500. The original appeal concerned whether a contractor under an entire contract not fully performed was entitled to payment for part performance. The Court of Appeal held the contract was not entire and dismissed the appeal. The respondent then taxed a party and party bill of costs. The Taxing Officer allowed various items including fees for perusing letters about payment arrangements between advocates, an instruction fee of Sh. 1,500 (reduced from Sh. 2,500 claimed), and Sh. 70 for attending Court when the appeal was not reached. The appellant objected to the taxation under rule 7 of the Taxation Rules 1916.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer properly allowed costs for perusing letters concerning arrangements between advocates regarding payment of the decretal amount.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer properly exercised discretion in allowing an instruction fee of Sh. 1,500 in a simple appeal involving Sh. 500.
  3. Whether the Taxing Officer properly allowed costs for attending Court when the appeal was not reached.
  4. Whether the Taxing Officer was required to give reasons when exercising discretion in taxation.

Orders

  • Objection allowed with costs.
  • Items 3, 4, 5 and 11 of the bill of costs disallowed.
  • Item 9 (instruction fee) sent for retaxation by another Taxing Officer.
  • Item 24 (percentage increase) to be adjusted accordingly.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Party and Party Costs — Letters Between Advocates
Letters concerning arrangements between advocates regarding payment of the decretal amount against an undertaking to refund in the event of appeal success are not party and party costs and cannot be claimed separately even if they relate to the appeal.
Taxation of Costs — Taxing Officer's Discretion — Duty to Give Reasons
A Taxing Officer when exercising discretion in allowing or disallowing items on taxation must give reasons for the decision to enable proper review on objection.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Assessment Principles
Where an appeal is simple in nature and the judge does not call upon the respondent to address the court, describing it as involving varied questions of law and facts to justify a high instruction fee constitutes a gross exaggeration that misleads the Taxing Officer and warrants retaxation.
Taxation of Costs — Attendance Fees — Conducting the Appeal
An attendance at Court when the appeal is not reached cannot be claimed as conducting the appeal and is not allowable as a party and party cost.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Taxation Rules 1916 r.7
  • Rules of Her Majesty's Supreme Court of Kenya s.111

Cases cited (1)

  • Hasham Kara v Abdul Mohamed Hussein Karnali (22 KLR 1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Singh v Mavji (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1950) [1952] EACA 297 (1 January 1952)
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.