Wakilii

The Attorney General & Anor v Turyamureeba Benon & Ors (HCT-00-CU-MA-0785-2001 ) (HCT-00-CU-MA-0785-2001)

High Court · [2003] UGHC 47 · 2003 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of costs following judgment in HCCS No. 207 of 1993
Decision
Instruction fee reduced from Shs. 1,400,499,000 to Shs. 109,700,000 for the 1097 plaintiffs; bill of costs for the 133 plaintiffs upheld

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 held that an instruction fee of Shs. 1,400,974,000 awarded for representing 1097 plaintiffs whose cases were never tried was manifestly excessive and constituted an error in principle. The taxing officer erred by considering individual awards rather than the gross award and by awarding similar instruction fees for cases that went to trial and those that did not. The instruction fee was reduced from Shs. 1,400,499,000 to Shs. 109,700,000 as fair and reasonable given the minimal work involved for the 1097 plaintiffs whose cases were resolved by application of the test case judgment.

Outcome

Instruction fee reduced from Shs. 1,400,499,000 to Shs. 109,700,000 for the 1097 plaintiffs; bill of costs for the 133 plaintiffs upheld

Facts

In HCCS No. 207 of 1993, 1230 plaintiffs sued the Attorney General and Kabarole District Council for damages following unlawful eviction from Mpokya Game Reserve. The court ordered a test case involving 133 plaintiffs to proceed while the remaining 1097 plaintiffs awaited the outcome. On 12 April 1999, the trial judge found that all plaintiffs had been unlawfully evicted and awarded each plaintiff Shs. 10,000,000 general damages and Shs. 2,000,000 exemplary damages. On 13 July 2001, bills of costs were filed: Shs. 287,899,400 for the 133 plaintiffs and Shs. 1,403,669,000 for the 1097 plaintiffs. The Deputy Registrar taxed these bills and awarded instruction fees of Shs. 160,065,000 and Shs. 1,400,499,000 respectively. The Attorney General appealed the instruction fee for the 1097 plaintiffs.

Issues

  1. Whether the instruction fee of Shs. 1,400,974,000 awarded in respect of the 1097 plaintiffs was manifestly excessive as to constitute an error in principle.
  2. Whether the taxing officer erred in considering individual awards as a basis for assessing instruction fees rather than the gross award.
  3. Whether the taxing officer adequately took into account the public interest principle.
  4. Whether the appeal was maintainable under section 61(1) of the Advocates Act.
  5. Whether the appeal was time-barred.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Instruction fee in respect of the 1097 litigants reduced from Shs. 1,400,499,000 to Shs. 109,700,000.
  • Total bill of costs for the 1097 litigants reduced from Shs. 1,403,669,000 to Shs. 113,257,000.
  • Taxed bill of costs of Shs. 219,466,300 in respect of the 133 litigants remains intact.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Appeals from Taxing Officer — Maintainability under Advocates Act s.61(1)
An appeal from a party-to-party taxation is maintainable under section 61(1) of the Advocates Act 1970, which broadly provides that any person affected by an order of a taxing officer may appeal within thirty days to a judge of the High Court.
Taxation of Costs — Assessment of Instruction Fee — Principles
The principles for determining whether an instruction fee is manifestly excessive include: costs should not confine access to courts to the wealthy; a successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed; the general level of remuneration must attract recruits to the profession; and there should be consistency in awards.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fee — Error in Principle
An instruction fee is manifestly excessive and constitutes an error in principle if it is out of proportion with the value and importance of the suit and the work involved.
Taxation of Costs — Multiple Plaintiffs — Basis of Assessment
Where multiple litigants sue through a single attorney and are represented by the same counsel, the taxing officer should consider the gross award rather than individual awards when assessing instruction fees, particularly where the cases involve identical legal issues.
Taxation of Costs — Test Cases — Instruction Fee for Non-Tried Cases
It is unfair and an error in principle for a taxing officer to award a uniform instruction fee for plaintiffs whose cases went through full trial and plaintiffs whose cases were resolved by application of a test case judgment without any trial, as the work involved is not equal.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (10)

  • Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd (No.3) [1972] EA 162
  • Simpson Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation [1964] 3 All ER 833
  • Interfreight Forwarders (Uganda) Ltd v East Africa Development Bank (SCCA No. 13 of 1993)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga (CA No. 4 of 1981)
  • Henry MB Makmot v George Cosomas Adyebo and 2 Others (HC MCA No. 430 of 1998)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (SCCA No. 17 of 1993)
  • Alexander J Okello v Kayondo and Company Advocates (SCCA No. 1 of 1997)
  • Attorney General v PK Ssemwogerere and Zachary Olum (SCCA No. 20 of 2000)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (SCCA No. 23 of 1999)
  • Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v DAPCB (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Attorney General & Anor v Turyamureeba Benon & Ors (HCT-00-CU-MA-0785-2001 ) (HCT-00-CU-MA-0785-2001) [2003] UGHC 47 (21 March 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.