Wakilii

The Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3 OF 1995)

High Court · [1995] UGHCCD 1 · 1995 Reference Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to full court from ruling of single Supreme Court judge on taxation of costs
Decision
Reference dismissed with costs to the respondent; instruction fee award of UGX 7 million 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 Supreme Court dismissed the reference challenging a single judge's reduction of instruction fees from UGX 70 million to UGX 7 million in a costs taxation. The Court held that the taxing officer erred in basing the instruction fee on the aggregate value of the property including post-1972 developments made by persons not party to the proceedings. The underlying appeal had determined only that the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 applied to the suit land, granting the applicants status as former owners entitled to apply for repossession, not transferring title itself. The intellectual nature of the legal question—statutory interpretation—rather than the property's current market value was the proper basis for assessing the instruction fee.

Outcome

Reference dismissed with costs to the respondent; instruction fee award of UGX 7 million upheld

Facts

The applicants held a 49-year leasehold over land in Kampala on which stood a club house and recreation ground for the Kampala Institute, originally a members' club for Goans. Following the 1972 expulsion of Asians by the Military Regime, the government took over the property and managed it through the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board. The club house was used as a mess for Senior Prisons Officers. The lease expired in 1981. In 1983 the applicants applied for repossession under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 but were refused on the ground that the lease had expired and the property had reverted to Kampala City Council. The applicants sued in the High Court seeking declaratory orders. The High Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that section 1(1)(c) of the Act applied to the suit land, thereby declaring the applicants to be former owners entitled to apply for a repossession certificate. The applicants filed a bill of costs claiming instruction fees based on a valuation of UGX 2.1 billion, which included post-1972 developments not made by the applicants. The Registrar as taxing officer taxed the instruction fee at UGX 70 million. On reference, a single Supreme Court judge reduced the fee to UGX 7 million. The applicants referred that decision to the full court.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned single judge erred in principle in finding that the value of the suit property was not a proper basis for the taxation of costs.
  2. Whether the learned judge erred by failing to take into account developments carried out by the applicants on the property and distinguish between pre-1972 and post-1972 developments.
  3. Whether the learned judge erred in principle when he attempted to separate developments on the land from the ownership of the land.
  4. Whether the learned judge erred in finding the facts of Patrick Makumbi v Sole Electric Ltd relevant.
  5. Whether the award of instruction fee was in all circumstances manifestly inadequate.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fee — Proper Basis for Assessment
In taxation of instruction fees, where an appeal determines only a point of statutory interpretation without transferring title or quantifying proprietary interests, the intellectual nature of the legal question rather than the current market value of property is the proper basis for assessment.
Taxation of Costs — Value of Property — Developments by Non-Parties
A taxing officer errs in principle when basing an instruction fee on the aggregate value of property including developments made after dispossession by persons who were not party to the proceedings, particularly where the court expressly declined to make declarations that would affect the interests of such non-parties.
Review of Taxation — Reference to Full Court
Under Rule 109 of the Supreme Court Rules, an appellate court reviewing a single judge's decision on taxation should not interfere unless the judge applied wrong principles or erred in law; the fact that the award is on the lower side does not warrant interference if the ruling was based on correct principle.
Taxation of Costs — Declaratory Relief — Assessment of Amount Involved
Where a declaration does not finally settle proprietary rights between parties but only determines a party's status for purposes of making a future application, the amount involved in the appeal for taxation purposes cannot be assessed as the full market value of the property.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (8)

  • Premchand Raichand v Quarry Services (No. 3) (1972) Ex 162
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blankets Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 1972)
  • Nanyuki Esso Service v Touring Care Ltd (1972) EA 500
  • Patrick Makumbi & Another v Sole Electric (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 11 of 1994)
  • Allen vs. Pratt (1888) 13 App. (case 780) quoted in cooper & Another vs. Nevill & Another (1959) EA at page 76
  • cooper & Another vs. Nevill & Another (1959) EA at page 76
  • Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1993)
  • Lutaya v Gandesha (1986) HCB 46

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 NO.3 OF 1995) [1995] UGHCCD 1 (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.