Wakilii

Ssemakula v Kibuuka (Taxation Appeal No. 3 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 212 · 2022 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal from Taxing Master's award of costs
Decision
Taxation award reduced to bring quantum in line with statutory scale of fees

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 in part. The court found that the Taxing Master erred in awarding instruction fees of UGX 5,000,000 where the subject matter was estimated at above UGX 20,000,000 but the precise excess was not stated. Applying the Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, the court reduced instruction fees to UGX 2,320,000 and revised several other items to bring the total award in line with the prescribed scale of fees.

Outcome

Taxation award reduced to bring quantum in line with statutory scale of fees

Facts

The Respondent obtained a costs award of UGX 6,790,000 from the Taxing Master in M.A No.261 of 2021, arising from underlying litigation that originated in Civil Suit No.10 of 2003. The Appellant challenged the taxation on grounds that the instruction fees of UGX 5,000,000 were manifestly excessive and that several items were taxed contrary to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Amendment Regulation SI No.7 of 2018. The subject matter of the underlying suit was estimated at above UGX 20,000,000 but the precise value was not stated. The Appellant's lawyers did not attend the taxation hearing and the Appellant raised no objections at the time of taxation.

Issues

  1. Whether the award of the Taxing Officer of UGX 6,790,000/= in M.A No.261 of 2021 ought to be set aside and/or be reduced.

Orders

  • The award of the Taxing Officer of UGX 6,790,000/= in M.A No.261 of 2021 is set aside and reduced.
  • Item 1 (instruction fees) revised from UGX 5,000,000 to UGX 2,320,000.
  • Item 4 (drafting affidavit in reply) revised from UGX 300,000 to UGX 200,000.
  • Item 5 (making 3 copies of affidavit in reply) revised from UGX 150,000 to UGX 90,000.
  • Item 6 (commissioning 3 copies of affidavit in reply) revised from UGX 120,000 to UGX 90,000.
  • Items 13, 14, 15, 16, and 19 maintained as taxed.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Principles Governing Appellate Interference with Taxing Master's Discretion
A judge will not interfere with a Taxing Master's assessment of costs save in exceptional cases where it is shown that the Taxing Master applied a wrong principle, which may be inferred from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low, and only where the error substantially affected the quantum and upholding the amount would cause injustice.
Taxation of Costs — Assessment of Instruction Fees Where Subject Matter Value is Vaguely Stated
Where the value of the subject matter is stated as exceeding a threshold amount but the precise excess is not indicated, it is safer to use the stated threshold as the precise estimate for purposes of applying the statutory scale of fees under the Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Advocates Act Cap 267 s.62
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations r.3(1)
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations r.3(2)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations r.37
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations r.57
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Amendment Regulation SI No.7 of 2018

Cases cited (1)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssemakula_v_Kibuuka_(Taxation_Appeal_No._3_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_212_(4_November_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.