Wakilii

Ssegawa Samuel v Dr. Charles Lugero (TAXATION APPEAL NO. 0011 OF 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 87 · 2026 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation ruling of Assistant Registrar allowing Advocate/Client Bill of Costs
Decision
Taxation ruling set aside; 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

The High Court allowed the taxation appeal, finding that the Assistant Registrar erred in principle by awarding instruction fees of UGX 20,000,000/= without sufficient consideration of the early withdrawal of the suit, the limited scope of the dispute (0.767 decimals of encroached land), and the absence of a disclosed value of the subject matter in the pleadings. The court also found error in taxing costs for Misc. Application No. 431 of 2024, which was concluded by consent with costs to follow the main suit. The bill of costs was set aside and remitted for re-taxation before a different taxing officer.

Outcome

Taxation ruling set aside; bill of costs remitted for re-taxation before a different taxing officer

Facts

The Applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 181 of 2024 seeking a permanent injunction. The suit was subsequently withdrawn with costs awarded to the Respondent. The Respondent filed a bill of costs which was taxed by the Assistant Registrar at UGX 32,220,000/=, including UGX 20,000,000/= as instruction fees. The dispute concerned encroachment on 0.767 decimals of land. The suit was withdrawn on 27 February 2025 after pleadings but before trial bundles were filed or scheduling was done. The pleadings did not disclose the value of the subject matter. The Respondent contended that the suit concerned a high-value hospital development project valued at UGX 1,900,000,000/=, but the plaint was limited to seeking an injunction restraining eviction and demolition works. Misc. Application No. 431 of 2024 was concluded by consent with costs to follow the main suit.

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 hereby set aside.
  • The bill of costs is remitted for re-taxation before a different taxing officer, who shall assess the instruction fees and the costs of the related applications in accordance with the taxation principles, taking into account: (i) The stage at which Civil Suit No. 181 of 2024 was withdrawn; (ii) The limited extent of the disputed land (0.767 decimals); (iii) The absence of a disclosed value for the subject matter in the pleadings; (iv) 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

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Factors to Consider
Instruction fees should cover the advocate's work including taking instructions and other work necessary for presenting the case for trial, but must be assessed taking into account the stage reached in proceedings, the nature and scope of the dispute, the value of the subject matter (where disclosed), and the prevailing economic conditions.
Taxation of Costs — Appellate Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion
A court can only interfere with a taxing officer's discretion in awarding costs where there is an error in principle, where the taxing officer has considered irrelevant factors, or where the award is manifestly excessive or low.
Taxation of Costs — Valuation of Subject Matter — Source of Evidence
For purposes of taxation of a bill of costs, the money value of the subject matter should be ascertained from the pleadings, judgment, or settlement where applicable, and taxation must be based on the material before the taxing officer at the time of taxation, not on later material.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Early Withdrawal of Suit
Where a suit is withdrawn at an early stage before substantial proceedings are undertaken, and the dispute concerns a limited scope with no disclosed value of the subject matter in the pleadings, these are material factors that must be taken into account by the taxing officer in assessing instruction fees.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Valuation Based on Collateral Development
Where the dispute before court is confined to a small encroached portion of land, it is not proper to base instruction fees on the value of an intended development project on adjacent land while disregarding that the pleadings were limited to the encroachment and its consequences.
Taxation of Costs — Applications Concluded by Consent — Costs in the Cause
Where a miscellaneous application is concluded by consent with costs intended to follow the main suit, it ought to be treated distinctly from other applications when taxing costs, and a taxing officer errs in taxing multiple applications as one without regard to their separate nature.

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_(TAXATION_APPEAL_NO._0011_OF_2025)_[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.