Wakilii

Tumwesigye Louis Co Advocates v Ajuna Jackson Francis [2026] UGHCLD 1

High Court · 2026 Bill of Costs Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of an advocate-client bill of costs following leave granted in Miscellaneous Cause No. 132 of 2024
Decision
Advocate-client bill of costs taxed and allowed at UGX 16,106,000

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 taxation of an advocate-client bill of costs, the taxing officer held that instruction fees for uncomplicated interlocutory applications fall under rule 9(2) of the Sixth Schedule and allowed UGX 2,000,000 per application instead of UGX 3,000,000. For the main suit, instruction fees must be commensurate with the stage reached and the work actually done; since the advocate only filed an amended plaint, and the subject matter pleaded was UGX 750,000,000, the claimed UGX 31,034,883 was reduced to UGX 9,700,000 after crediting UGX 4,000,000 already paid. Items filed through ECCMIS and items absorbed in the instruction fee were taxed off. Disbursements drawn to scale were allowed. The bill was taxed and allowed at UGX 16,106,000.

Outcome

Advocate-client bill of costs taxed and allowed at UGX 16,106,000

Facts

Following leave granted in Miscellaneous Cause No. 132 of 2024, the applicant law firm filed an advocate-client bill of costs against its former client, the respondent, arising from Civil Suit No. 19 of 2021 and two interlocutory applications (Miscellaneous Application No. 149 of 2023 for addition of parties and Miscellaneous Application No. 1671 of 2021 for UNRA to deposit compensation). The firm claimed UGX 3,000,000 as instruction fees on the interlocutory applications and UGX 31,034,883 for the main suit, computed on a subject matter value of UGX 1,285,744,154. The respondent contended that the interlocutory applications attracted only the minimum fee under rule 9(2), that the only work done in the main suit was the filing of an amended plaint, that the amended plaint pleaded a subject matter of UGX 750,000,000, and that he had already paid UGX 4,000,000. The advocate-client fee note recorded instruction fees of UGX 13,700,000. The respondent also objected to items filed through ECCMIS, to an item relating to a meeting said to be unconnected with the case, and to separately charged disbursements.

Issues

  1. What instruction fees are payable to an advocate for making or opposing interlocutory applications under rule 9(2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.
  2. How instruction fees for the main suit should be assessed where the advocate did not conduct the matter to conclusion.
  3. What value of the subject matter should be adopted for computing instruction fees where taxation occurs before judgment.
  4. Whether items filed electronically through ECCMIS and items subsumed in the instruction fee may be separately charged.
  5. Whether the disbursements claimed were properly drawn to scale and recoverable.

Orders

  • Items 1 and 2 allowed at instruction fees of UGX 2,000,000 each; UGX 1,000,000 taxed off each item.
  • Instruction fees for Civil Suit No. 19 of 2021 taxed and allowed at UGX 9,700,000; UGX 21,334,883 taxed off.
  • Items 5 and 21 taxed off as they were filed through ECCMIS.
  • Item 6 allowed at UGX 20,000 under Regulation 12(2)(b).
  • Items 7 to 19 and 22 allowed as unopposed.
  • Item 20 taxed off as covered by the instruction fees.
  • Disbursements (items 23 to 37) allowed at UGX 566,000.
  • Bill of costs taxed and allowed at UGX 16,106,000.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Instruction Fees for Interlocutory Applications under Rule 9(2) of the Sixth Schedule
Instruction fees for making or opposing an interlocutory application are governed by rule 9(2) of the Sixth Schedule, which sets a minimum of UGX 300,000; where the applications are uncomplicated and disposed of on directions for written submissions, a moderate figure above the minimum, rather than the fee claimed, is appropriate.
Costs — Taxation — Instruction Fees Commensurate with Stage Reached and Work Done
An advocate does not become entitled at the moment of instruction to the whole fee ultimately claimable; instruction fees must be commensurate with the stage the case has reached and the work actually done, and any sums already paid by the client are credited against the fee allowed.
Costs — Taxation — Ascertaining Value of Subject Matter for Scale Fees
Under rule 1(1) of the Sixth Schedule the value of the subject matter for computing instruction fees is taken from the pleadings, a valuation, a settlement or the judgment; where taxation occurs before judgment, the value pleaded in the operative pleading governs, and the taxing officer first ascertains the scale fee before deciding whether it should be increased or decreased.
Costs — Taxation — Items Absorbed in Instruction Fee and Electronic Filing
Items of work that are subsumed within the instruction fee, and steps effected electronically through the court's electronic case management system, are not separately chargeable and will be taxed off, while disbursements drawn up to scale are allowed as claimed.
Costs — Taxation — Policy Limits on Instruction Fees
Instruction fees should not be so excessive as to discourage the public from accessing the courts, nor so low as to demoralise entrants to the legal profession.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (5)

  • Nijel Rawlins v Tito Turiyo (Miscellaneous Application No. 73 of 2022)
  • Lumweno & Co. Advocates v Transafrica Assurance Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2004)
  • PETER MUTHOKA AND ANOTHER VERSUS OCHEING AND 3 OTHERS 2029 EKLR
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga Wamala and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Bank of Uganda v Sudhir Ruparelia and Another (Taxation Reference No. 1 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tumwesigye Louis Co Advocates v Ajuna Jackson Francis [2026] UGHCLD 1 (8 January 2026)
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.