Ssali and Another v Namuyaba (Taxation Appeal No. 5 of 2020)

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.

Holding

Held that a taxing master must provide clear reasons and principles when taxing costs. Where the taxing master reduced a bill of costs from UGX 2,964,000 to UGX 692,000 without recording reasons or criteria, the taxation award was set aside as inappropriately arrived at and unreasonable. The appellants' initial bill of costs was maintained as reasonable in the circumstances.

Outcome

Taxation award set aside and original bill of costs maintained

Facts

The appellants were defendants in Civil Suit No. 22 of 2017, which was dismissed with costs in their favour. They filed a bill of costs claiming UGX 2,694,000. The taxing master reduced this to UGX 692,000. The appellants appealed, alleging they were not served with the taxation hearing notice, that the taxation proceeded in their absence despite a request for adjournment to obtain legal representation, and that the taxing master failed to judiciously exercise discretion. The respondent did not file an affidavit in reply. The court found that the appellants had themselves taken out the taxation hearing notice, and that the first appellant was present at the taxation hearing. However, the court found no record of proceedings detailing the reasons and principles that guided the taxing master in arriving at the taxed amount.

Issues

1. Whether the taxation award should be set aside for failure to serve the appellants with the taxation hearing notice.
2. Whether the taxation proceeded improperly in the absence of the appellants.
3. Whether the taxing master failed to judiciously exercise discretion in taxing the bill of costs.
4. Whether the taxed amount of UGX 692,000 was unreasonable and inappropriate.

Orders

• Taxation award set aside for being inappropriately arrived at, unreasonable, and lacking clear reasons.
• Appellants' initial bill of costs claiming UGX 2,964,000 maintained as reasonable and adequate.
• Appeal allowed.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Advocates Act Cap 267 s.62
• Taxation of Costs (Appeals and Reference) Rules SI 267-5 r.3
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations s.9
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations s.10(2)
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations s.13A
• Civil Procedure Rules O.5

Cases cited (5)

• Oloka Onyango and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2014)
• Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
• Thomas James Arthur v. Nyeri Electricity Undertaking, [1961] EA 492
• Edison Kanyabware vrs. Pastori Tumwebaze SCCA 6/2004
• Re Poyser and Mills Arbitration [1963] 1 All ER 612, [1964] 2 QB 467

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