Wakilii

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd & 2 Ors v Western Highland Creameries Ltd & Anor (Taxation Appeal No. 5 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGCOMMC 77 · 2013 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of costs arising from HCCS No. 462 of 2011, which was dismissed on a preliminary point of law (limitation).
Decision
Appeal allowed. Matter remitted to the registrar for recalculation of instruction fees based on the correct subject matter value.

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 Commercial Division allowed the appeal, holding that the taxing master erred in law by failing to determine the value of the subject matter of the suit from the plaint as required by the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule Item 1(a)(iv). The taxing master wrongly discounted a distinct claim for economic and financial loss totaling Uganda shillings 36,818,885,665 and used an incorrect land valuation of US$4 million instead of the pleaded US$5 million. The court set aside the instruction fees award and remitted the matter for recalculation based on the correct subject matter value extracted from the plaint.

Outcome

Appeal allowed. Matter remitted to the registrar for recalculation of instruction fees based on the correct subject matter value.

Facts

The respondents filed HCCS No. 462 of 2011 seeking recovery of land and plant valued at US$5 million and compensatory damages of Uganda shillings 36,818,885,665 for economic and financial loss. The suit was dismissed by the High Court on 25 October 2012 on a preliminary point of law after it was found time-barred under the Limitation Act and to disclose no cause of action. The appellants filed a bill of costs claiming instruction fees based on a subject matter value of Uganda shillings 58,834,014,688. The taxing master awarded instruction fees of Uganda shillings 104,867,500, valuing the land at US$4 million and excluding the claim for economic and financial loss on grounds it was compensatory damages. The appellants appealed, arguing the taxing master erred by not using the amounts pleaded in the plaint: US$5 million for the land and Uganda shillings 36,818,885,665 for economic loss.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing master erred in law in determining the subject matter of the suit and the value of the subject matter for taxation of instruction fees.
  2. Whether the taxing master misdirected himself in finding that the appellant added a claim for compensatory damages.
  3. Whether the taxing master failed to include the sum of Uganda shillings 36,818,885,665 as part of the value of the subject matter.
  4. Whether the taxing master erred in failing to award instruction fees based on the true value of the subject matter pleaded in the plaint.

Orders

  • Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the appeal succeed.
  • The award of the taxing master relating to item 1 on instruction fees in the appellants' bill of costs is set aside.
  • Instruction fees shall be calculated on the basis of the correct value of the subject matter as can be discerned from the plaint, namely US$5,000,000 plus Uganda shillings 38,818,885,665 as set out in paragraph 8 of the plaint.
  • Item number 1 on instruction fees is referred back to the registrar to calculate the instruction fees accordingly and issue a revised certificate of taxation immediately.
  • For purposes of the bank guarantee issued by NC Bank Uganda Limited, time under clause 3 thereof will run after the registrar issues a final certificate of taxation in accordance with the orders of this court.
  • Costs of the appeal are awarded to the appellants.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Determination of Subject Matter Value from Plaint
Under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule Item 1(a)(iv), where a suit is dismissed and no judgment amount is available, the value of the subject matter for taxation of instruction fees must be determined from the amount claimed in the plaint. The taxing master has no discretionary power to discount or exclude amounts pleaded in the plaint as part of the claim.
Dismissal on Preliminary Point of Law — Nature of Decree
A dismissal of a suit on a preliminary point of law under Order 15 rule 2 or Order 6 rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules for being time-barred constitutes a decree as defined by section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act. Such dismissal conclusively determines the rights of the parties and is not an interlocutory order. The dismissal is of the same quality as dismissal after full trial for purposes of costs.
Taxation Appeals — Grounds for Interference
An appellate court will interfere with a taxing master's award in exceptional circumstances: where the award is manifestly excessive or low; where there has been misdirection on law or fact; or where the award has been arrived at upon application of wrong principles. An error in determining the value of the subject matter for instruction fees constitutes an error of principle justifying interference.
Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations — Subject Matter Valuation
The determination of the amount claimed for purposes of the sixth schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations is mandatory and depends on a question of fact: whether an amount has been claimed in the plaint, and if so, what that amount is. There is no discretionary power given to the taxing master to discount what is claimed.
Cause of Action — Effect of Time Bar
Where a suit is barred by the law of limitation, the plaintiff does not enjoy a right to an action in a court of law. A plaint which discloses a cause of action barred by limitation should be rejected under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules as a plaint barred by law. The rejection of a plaint results in a decree that conclusively determines the rights of the parties.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (9)

  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993)
  • Arthur versus Nyeri Electrician Undertaking [1961] EA 492
  • Nicholas Rousous v Ghulam Hussein Habib Virani and Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1998)
  • Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 3 of 1995)
  • Makula International Ltd vs. Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11
  • Shumuk Springs Development Ltd and Others v Mwebesa Katatumba and Six Others (Taxation Appeal No. 21 of 2012)
  • Auto Garage versus Motokov [1971] EA 514
  • Iga v Makerere University [1972] 1 EA 65
  • Thomas James Arthur versus Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] EA 492

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd & 2 Ors v Western Highland Creameries Ltd & Anor (Taxation Appeal No. 5 of 2013) [2013] UGCommC 77 (30 April 2013)
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.