Steve Williams v Kyaninga Royal Cottages Limited (Civil Appeal 9 of 2019)

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.

Holding

Held that the Taxing Officer properly exercised discretion in assessing instruction fees where the value of the subject matter was unascertained. The proceedings concerned procedural issues non-determinative of intellectual property rights. The Taxing Officer correctly applied relevant principles, took into account the nature and importance of the matter, and assessed fees starting from the prescribed minimum for interlocutory applications. No error in principle, fact, or quantum was shown. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed, taxation ruling upheld

Facts

The appellant, trading as Kyaninga Lodge, sued the respondent for intellectual property infringement. The respondent applied to strike out the suit on grounds that the plaintiff was a non-existent entity. The application was allowed and the suit dismissed on 20 September 2018 with costs to the respondent. The respondent's bill of costs claimed UGX 125,000,000 but was taxed down to UGX 17,094,600 by the Deputy Registrar on 25 February 2019. The Deputy Registrar applied different scales depending on when each activity occurred relative to the 2018 amendment of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules. The appellant appealed, arguing the award was excessive given the suit was dismissed on a preliminary point of law.

Issues

1. Whether the Deputy Registrar erred in law and fact when he awarded costs of UGX 17,094,600 as excessive and not in conformity with court practice.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• The Advocates Act s.62(1)
• The Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 Rule 8
• The Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations S.I 267-5 Rule 3
• The Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 Regulation 6(1) and (2)
• The Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 Regulation 9(2)
• The Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 6th Schedule Item 1(1)
• The Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 6th Schedule Item 1(e) vii(b)
• The Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 6th Schedule Item 9(2)
• The Expropriated Properties Act, 1982 s.1(1)(c)

Cases cited (27)

• Mohamed Kalisa v Gladys Nyangire Karumu and Two Others (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 139 of 2013)
• Mbogo and Another v Shah [1968] 1 EA 93
• National Insurance Corporation v Mugenyi and Company Advocates [1987] HCB 28
• Wasswa J Hannington and Another v Ochola Maria Onyango and Three Others [1992-93] HCB 103
• Devji v Jinabhai (1934) 1 EACA 89
• HK Shah and Another v Osman Allu (1974) 14 EACA 45
• Patel v R Gottifried (1963) 20 EACA 81
• Haji Nadin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)
• Sheikh Jama v Dubat Farah [1959] 1 EA 789
• Hussein Janmohamed and Sons v Twentsche Overseas Trading Co Ltd [1967] 1 EA 287
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
• Thomas James Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertaking [1961] 1 EA 492
• Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999) [1999] EA 45
• Steel Construction and Petroleum Engineering (EA) Ltd v Uganda Sugar Factory Limited [1970] EA 141
• Kabanda v Kananura Melvin Consulting Engineers (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 24 of 1993)
• Makumbi and Another v Sole Electrics (U) Ltd [1990-1994] 1 EA 306
• Premchand Raichand Ltd and Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and Others [1972] EA 162
• Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
• Bashiri v Vitafoam (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 13 of 1995)
• Habre International Ltd [2000] EA 98
• Nalumansi v Lule (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 12 of 1992)
• Hashjam v Zanab [1957] 1 EA 255
• First American Bank of Kenya v Shah and Others [2002] 1 EA 64
• Republic v Minister of Agriculture and 2 Others Ex parte Samuel Muchiri W'Njuguna and Others [2006] 1 EA 359
• Cooper and Another v Nevill and Another [1959] 1 EA 74
• The Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 3 of 1995)
• Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Associates [2002] 1 EA 92

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