Wakilii

Ssegawa Samuel v Dr Charles Lugero [2026] UGHCLD 87

High Court · 2026 Reference Allowed — Bill Remitted for Re-taxation AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a judge from the taxation ruling of an Assistant Registrar under s.62 of the Advocates Act
Decision
Reference succeeded; taxation set aside and bill of costs remitted for re-taxation before a different 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

On a reference from a taxation ruling, the Court held that a taxing officer's discretion is only interfered with where a wrong principle was applied, irrelevant factors considered, or the award is manifestly excessive. Instruction fees of UGX 20,000,000 were excessive because the taxing officer effectively based them on the UGX 1,900,000,000 value of an intended hospital development rather than the actual dispute, which concerned encroachment of only 0.767 decimals, was withdrawn before scheduling or trial, and involved pleadings disclosing no value for the subject matter. Taxing two separate miscellaneous applications as one, where one had been concluded by consent with costs in the cause, was also irregular. Taxation set aside and remitted for re-taxation before a different taxing officer.

Outcome

Reference succeeded; taxation set aside and bill of costs remitted for re-taxation before a different taxing officer

Facts

The applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 181 of 2024 seeking, among other relief, a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from evicting tenants or carrying out demolition and excavation works affecting quiet enjoyment. A boundary opening survey report dated 29 April 2024 showed encroachment of 0.767 decimals (about 31 square metres). The respondent's amended written statement of defence pleaded intended construction on his land, annexed a valuation of an intended hospital project at UGX 1,900,000,000, and counterclaimed for vacant possession of the encroached portion. The suit was withdrawn on 27 February 2025, after pleadings but before scheduling or filing of trial bundles, with costs to the respondent. The respondent filed an advocate/client bill of costs which the Assistant Registrar taxed at UGX 32,220,000, reducing claimed instruction fees from UGX 50,000,000 to UGX 20,000,000. The bill also covered Misc. Applications No. 430 and 431 of 2024; the registrar taxed both at UGX 6,000,000 each although Misc. Application No. 431 of 2024 had been concluded by consent with costs in the cause. Neither party's pleadings disclosed the value of the subject matter.

Issues

  1. Whether the Learned Assistant Registrar erred in principle in the taxation of the bill of costs.
  2. Whether the instruction fees of UGX 20,000,000 were excessive or unjustified in the circumstances.
  3. Whether the award of costs in Miscellaneous Application No. 431 of 2024 was erroneous.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The taxation of the bill of costs in Taxation Application No. 234 of 2025 is set aside.
  • The bill of costs is remitted for re-taxation before a different taxing officer, who shall assess instruction fees and costs of related applications in accordance with taxation principles, taking into account the stage at which Civil Suit No. 181 of 2024 was withdrawn, the limited extent of the disputed land (0.767 decimals), the absence of a disclosed value of the subject matter in the pleadings, and the separate treatment of Misc. Applications No. 430 and 431 of 2024.
  • Costs of this reference shall follow the event and be in the cause, reflecting the outcome of the re-taxation process.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Grounds for Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion
A judge on reference will not interfere with a taxing officer's exercise of discretion on quantum unless the taxing officer applied a wrong principle, took irrelevant factors into account, or the award is manifestly excessive or manifestly low.
Costs — Taxation — Assessment of Instruction Fees — Relevant Principles
Instruction fees cover taking instructions and all other work necessary to present the case for trial or appeal; there is no mathematical formula, each case turns on its own circumstances, the value of the subject matter may have a bearing, and the discretion must be exercised judicially with a view to consistency and to keeping costs at a level that does not deny access to court.
Costs — Taxation — Value of Subject Matter Not Disclosed in Pleadings
The money value of the subject matter for taxation purposes is ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement; where the pleadings disclose no value, the taxing officer must exercise discretion having regard to the nature of the claim, the interests involved, the stage reached, and the general conduct of the proceedings.
Costs — Taxation — Material Before the Taxing Officer — Excessive Instruction Fees
Taxation must be based on the material before the taxing officer at the time of taxation, and instruction fees may not be pegged to the value of a development that was not the subject of the pleadings; where the dispute was confined to a small encroached portion of land of undisclosed value and the suit was withdrawn at an early stage, an award ignoring those factors is excessive and constitutes an error in principle.
Costs — Taxation — Separate Applications — Costs in the Cause by Consent
Where an interlocutory application is concluded by consent with costs ordered to be in the cause, it must be taxed distinctly from other applications, and a taxing officer errs by treating two separate applications as one for purposes of assessing instruction fees.
Costs — Taxation — Remedy on Reference — Remission to a Different Taxing Officer
Where an error in principle is established on a reference from taxation, the appropriate remedy is to set aside the taxation and remit the bill of costs for re-taxation before a different taxing officer with directions on the relevant considerations.
Practice and Procedure — Written Submissions Filed Out of Time Without Leave
Submissions filed outside timelines agreed by the parties and fixed by the court, without leave, may be disregarded and the court may proceed on the affidavit evidence on record.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (9)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssegawa Samuel v Dr Charles Lugero [2026] UGHCLD 87 (8 April 2026)
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.