Wakilii

Ssenogerere and Another v Attorney General (Civil Reference No.08 of 2001)

Court of Appeal · [2003] UGCA 30 · 2003 Reference Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single judge from the ruling of the Taxing Officer on a bill of costs in Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 1999
Decision
Reference allowed; instruction fees substantially increased to a total of shs.140,000,000

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 reference from a taxation ruling, the single judge held that the Taxing Officer misdirected himself by treating the constitutional petition as an ordinary matter of no special importance, contrary to the Supreme Court's authoritative finding on the same subject matter that the case was of great national importance and difficulty. The award of shs.8,000,000 instruction fee per counsel was manifestly too low and was increased to shs.40,000,000 each. The court also held that instruction fees for opposing preliminary objections were recoverable under Regulation 9(3) of Schedule III, awarding shs.30,000,000 per counsel for that work. Total instruction fees awarded were shs.140,000,000.

Outcome

Reference allowed; instruction fees substantially increased to a total of shs.140,000,000

Facts

In 1999 Parliament enacted the Referendum and Other Provisions Act, 1999. The two applicants filed Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 1999 challenging the Act's constitutionality on the ground that it was passed without the required quorum. The respondent raised four preliminary objections, all upheld by the Constitutional Court, which dismissed the petition. The applicants successfully appealed to the Supreme Court, which ordered the petition to be heard on its merits; the Constitutional Court then nullified the Act with costs for two counsel. The applicants filed a Bill of Costs of shs.2,508,097,000, including shs.1,000,000,000 as instruction fees for opposing the preliminary objection and shs.1,500,000,000 for prosecuting the petition. The Taxing Officer taxed the bill at shs.19,451,500, declining any instruction fees for opposing the preliminary objection and awarding shs.8,000,000 to each counsel for prosecuting the petition. The applicants referred the taxation to a single judge on grounds that the fees were manifestly inadequate and the disallowance of preliminary-objection fees was erroneous.

Issues

  1. Whether the instruction fee of shs.8,000,000 awarded to each counsel for prosecuting the constitutional petition was manifestly inadequate.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in law by disallowing instruction fees for opposing the respondent's preliminary objections in the Constitutional Court.

Orders

  • First ground of reference succeeds; instruction fee for prosecuting the petition increased from shs.8,000,000 to shs.40,000,000 for each counsel.
  • Second ground of reference succeeds; instruction fee of shs.30,000,000 for each counsel awarded for opposing the preliminary objection.
  • Total instruction fees awarded is shs.140,000,000 inclusive of the costs of taxation before the Taxing Officer and before the court.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Assessment Principles under Rule 9 of Schedule 3
In assessing instruction fees a taxing officer must undertake an intricate balancing exercise weighing the diverse general principles applicable, including the nature, importance and difficulty of the matter and all other relevant circumstances, to arrive at a reasonable fee.
Taxation of Costs — Review — Grounds for Interference with Taxing Officer's Award
A taxing officer's opinion on the reasonable fee is not to be interfered with lightly and there must be a compelling reason, such as a misdirection on the applicable principles, to justify interference on review.
Taxation of Costs — Importance and Difficulty — Constitutional Matters
Treating a constitutional petition as an ordinary matter of no special importance amounts to a misdirection where the litigation raised novel issues of national importance necessitating extensive research; the extent of authorities cited and preparation undertaken evidences the difficulty of the case.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees for Opposing Preliminary Objections
Instruction fees are recoverable for work necessarily and properly done in opposing preliminary objections under Regulation 9(3) of Schedule III, which covers all work in connection with the matter including attendances, perusals and consulting authorities.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (10)

  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers Ltd (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Premchand Raichand and Another v Quarry Services of East Africa [1972] E.A. 162
  • Paul K. Ssemogerere and Zachary Olum v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 8 of 2001)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 29 of 1999)
  • Ishanga @ahwa Nrue Samson, Civil Ref. No.16 of 2003 (CA), (unreported)
  • A. L. Kayira and P. K. Ssemogerere vs. Rugumayo and Others
  • Ssempebwa v Attorney General (Constitutional Case No. 1 of 1986)
  • Pinto v Kivumbi (Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 1997)
  • Simpson's Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation [1961] A.E.R. 833
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssenogerere and Another v Attorney General (Civil Reference No.08 of 2001) [2003] UGCA 30 (1 January 2003)
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.