Wakilii

Sushila Ghusalal v Lalita Manilal Raja and Others (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2001)

Court of Appeal · [2003] UGCA 35 · 2003 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from the Principal Judge's decision on a taxation reference arising out of a High Court civil suit
Decision
Appeal dismissed; Principal Judge's decision on taxation reference upheld

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a Principal Judge's decision on a taxation reference. It held that the appellant's claimed disbursements related to the main suit and not the withdrawn counterclaim, and so were rightly disallowed. Rule 40 gave the taxing master discretion to allow separate instruction fees where separate written statements of defence were necessary, which the appellant failed to disprove. The taxing master had properly assessed a lump-sum instruction fee of Shs.10,000,000 under Schedule 6 r.1(5), having regard to all relevant factors. Perusal fees under Schedules 5 and 6 were the same, occasioning no prejudice. Each party rightly bore its own costs where the reference only partly succeeded.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; Principal Judge's decision on taxation reference upheld

Facts

The appellant was a sublessee of and successor in title to Plot No.6A Market Street, Kampala, on a 99-year sublease at a yearly rent of Shs.53/75. After leaving Uganda in the 1972 Asian exodus, the property vested in the Departed Asians Properties Custodian Board, and she repossessed it in 1993 under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. A dispute arose when she insisted on paying the reserved rent while the respondents sought to increase it and to re-enter for non-payment. She filed HCCS No.89 of 1995 seeking declarations and orders. The respondents filed a defence with a counterclaim for management of the property, which was later withdrawn following a preliminary objection. The parties settled, leaving only costs for determination. Bills of costs were taxed, the appellant's counterclaim bill at Shs.875,900 and the joint respondents' bill at Shs.12,225,000. The appellant referred both bills to the Principal Judge, who allowed the reference in part and remitted items 1, 2 and 13 for reassessment. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant was entitled to disbursements (travel, hotel and subsistence costs) attributable to the withdrawn counterclaim.
  2. Whether the taxing master properly allowed instruction fees for three written statements of defence filed by the same advocate.
  3. Whether the taxing master and Principal Judge correctly assessed the instruction fee having regard to the value of the suit property.
  4. Whether perusal of letters and routine notices was correctly assessed.
  5. Whether the Principal Judge was wrong to order each party to bear its own costs of the reference.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents.
  • Award of Shs.10,000,000 instruction fee upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Disbursements attributable to a withdrawn counterclaim
A party claiming disbursements as costs of a withdrawn counterclaim must show that the expenditure related specifically to that counterclaim; disbursements incurred for the general conduct of the main suit are not recoverable as costs of the counterclaim.
Costs — Taxation — Instruction fees for separate pleadings under Rule 40
Where the same advocate is employed by two or more defendants and separate pleadings are delivered, Rule 40 gives the taxing officer a discretion to allow separate instruction fees where the separate pleadings were necessary and proper; the burden lies on the objecting party to show they were unnecessary.
Costs — Taxation — Assessment of instruction fees and appellate interference
An appellate court will only interfere with a taxing master's assessment of an instruction fee where it was arrived at by error of law or wrong principle, or where the fee is manifestly excessive or low so as to indicate it was reached injudiciously; the value of what was at stake is a relevant consideration, weighed with all other factors.
Costs — Discretion to award costs of a partly successful reference
Costs follow the event and are discretionary; where a reference succeeds only in part, it is appropriate for each party to bear its own costs.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules r.40
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules Schedule 6 r.1(5)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules Schedule 6 r.1(d) and (e)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules Schedule 6 r.6(b) and (c)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 1996 (SI No.3 of 1996) r.5
  • Taxation of Costs (Appeals and References) Rules r.3 and r.4
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.1(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.29
  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982

Cases cited (4)

  • Arthur v Nieri Electricity Undertaking (1961) EA 492
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Alexander Okello v M/s Kayondo & Co. Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Premchand Reichand Ltd and Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and Others (No.3) [1972] EA 162

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sushila Ghusalal v Lalita Manilal Raja and Others (Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2001) [2003] UGCA 35 (20 August 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.