Wakilii

The Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Application 3 of 1995)

Supreme Court · [1995] UGSC 27 · 1995 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to the full Supreme Court from a single judge's decision on a reference from the taxing officer regarding taxation of an instruction fee.
Decision
Reference to the full court dismissed; the single judge's reduction of the instruction fee from Shs. 70,000,000 to Shs. 7,000,000 stands, with costs to the respondent.

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 a reference to the full court from a single judge's decision on taxation, the Supreme Court held that the value of the suit property was not a proper basis for taxing the instruction fee. The substantive appeal had decided only a point of statutory interpretation — that the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applied to the suit land — without finally settling or quantifying proprietary rights. The taxing officer had misdirected himself by valuing aggregate pre- and post-1972 property, including interests of persons not before the court, and by treating all three reliefs as granted when only one was. The single judge had applied the correct principles in reducing the fee, and the reduced figure was not so low as to warrant interference.

Outcome

Reference to the full court dismissed; the single judge's reduction of the instruction fee from Shs. 70,000,000 to Shs. 7,000,000 stands, with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The applicants are the registered trustees of the Kampala Institute, a club whose largely Asian membership left Uganda following the 1972 expulsion. The club's leased Kampala land and clubhouse were taken over and managed by the respondent Board. The applicants' application for repossession under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 was rejected, and their High Court suit seeking declarations that the Act applied to the land was dismissed. On appeal the Supreme Court held that the suit land fell within section 1(1)(c) of the Act, declaring the applicants former owners able to apply for repossession. The applicants filed a bill of costs; the taxing officer allowed Shs. 70,000,000 as instruction fee, based on a property valuation of Shs. 2.1 billion that aggregated pre-1972 and post-1972 developments. On the respondent's reference, a single judge reduced the fee to Shs. 7,000,000. The applicants referred that decision to the full court.

Issues

  1. Whether the value of the suit property was a proper basis for taxation of the instruction fee.
  2. Whether the single judge erred in interfering with and reducing the instruction fee assessed by the taxing officer.
  3. Whether the public importance of the substantive appeal justified a higher instruction fee.

Orders

  • Reference to the full court dismissed.
  • Costs of the reference awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Interference with the Taxing Officer's Assessment
An appellate court will not interfere with a taxing officer's assessment of costs where the correct principles have been applied; equally, the full court will not interfere with a single judge's decision on a taxation reference unless the judge proceeded on a wrong principle or in error of law or policy.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Value of Subject Matter as Basis for Instruction Fee
The value of the subject matter of litigation is a proper basis for taxing an instruction fee only where the decision finally determined and quantified proprietary rights; where an appeal decided only a point of statutory interpretation without conferring or quantifying proprietary rights, the value of the property is not a proper basis for taxation.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Misdirection on Property Valuation
A taxing officer misdirects himself by basing the taxation of costs on the aggregate value of property that includes developments and interests belonging to persons who were not parties before the court.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Public Importance of an Appeal
The public importance of an appeal is only one of the relevant factors in assessing an instruction fee and does not by itself justify a high fee.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.1(1)(c)
  • Expropriated Properties Act 1982 s.1(2)(b)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court rule 108
  • Rules of the Supreme Court rule 109(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court rule 109(2)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court rule 109(5)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court rule 31
  • Rules of the Supreme Court third schedule para 9(2)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court third schedule para 9(3)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court third schedule para 1(2)

Cases cited (8)

  • Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services Ltd (No. 3) [1972] EA 162
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blankets Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Manyuki Esso Service v Tourink Cars Ltd [1977] EA 500
  • Patrick Makumbi & Another v Sole Electric (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)
  • Allen v Pratt (1888) 13 App Cas 780
  • Cooper & Another v Nevill & Another [1959] EA 74
  • Lutaya v Gandesha [1986] HCB 45
  • Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Application 3 of 1995) [1995] UGSC 27 (6 July 1995)
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.