Wakilii

Twinobusingye v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 27 of 2013)

Constitutional Court · [2018] UGCC 2 · 2018 Reference Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a single Justice of the Constitutional Court from the Registrar's (Taxing Master's) taxation of a bill of costs, under Rule 110 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Decision
Reference allowed; bill of costs re-taxed and reduced from Shs. 12,992,003,500/= to Shs. 21,811,000/=

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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

On a reference from the Taxing Master, the single Justice held that the award of Shs. 20 billion in instruction fees in a public interest constitutional petition was manifestly excessive, unjustified and ridiculous, and set it aside. The principles of ordinary taxation do not strictly apply to public interest litigation; where costs are awarded in such cases, professional fees should be nominal and the balance limited to disbursements. The Justice substituted instruction fees of Shs. 20,000,000 for lead counsel and Shs. 10,000,000 for assisting counsel, taxed off items allowed contrary to the Rules, disallowed VAT for want of proof of registration, and reduced the bill to reflect the 2/3 costs award, allowing a total of Shs. 21,811,000.

Outcome

Reference allowed; bill of costs re-taxed and reduced from Shs. 12,992,003,500/= to Shs. 21,811,000/=

Facts

The petitioner succeeded in Constitutional Petition No. 47 of 2011, a public interest petition challenging resolutions of Parliament concerning the oil sector, and was awarded two-thirds of the costs with a certificate for two counsel by judgment dated 21 February 2012. He filed a bill of costs of Shs. 23,625,759,940/=, comprising disbursements, professional fees and VAT. After a full hearing, the Registrar (Taxing Master) taxed and allowed the bill at Shs. 12,992,003,500/=, which included approximately Shs. 20 billion on instruction fees. The Attorney General, dissatisfied, referred the taxation to a single Justice of the Constitutional Court under Rule 110 of the Court of Appeal Rules, contending the award offended the principles of taxation and was manifestly excessive, particularly given that the petition was a public interest matter with no monetary value and costs payable from the consolidated fund.

Issues

  1. Whether the instruction fees awarded by the Registrar (Taxing Master) were manifestly excessive.
  2. What principles govern the award and taxation of costs in public interest constitutional litigation.
  3. Whether items allowed in the bill of costs (including VAT) were allowed in contravention of the law and should be taxed off.

Orders

  • The award of Shs. 20,000,000,000/= on instruction fees is set aside.
  • Instruction fees substituted: Shs. 20,000,000/= for lead Counsel and Shs. 10,000,000/= for assisting Counsel.
  • The claim for VAT is disallowed for want of proof of VAT registration.
  • Items allowed in contravention of the Rules are taxed off.
  • The bill of costs is allowed at a total of Shs. 21,811,000/=.
  • No order as to costs in the reference proceedings.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Reference from Taxing Master — Nature of the proceeding
A reference from the decision of a taxing master is not an appeal; the Judge takes a fresh look at the whole bill of costs and makes such deductions or additions as the justice of the case requires, and no formal motion, memorandum or grounds of appeal are required, dissatisfaction being expressed orally or in writing within seven days, with the parties retaining the status they held at the trial or appeal.
Costs — Instruction fees — Manifestly excessive award
An award of instruction fees that is manifestly excessive and unjustified, having no rational basis in the nature, importance and difficulty of the matter, will be set aside on reference and substituted with a reasonable amount.
Public Interest Litigation — Costs — Nominal professional fees
The ordinary principles of taxation do not strictly apply to public interest litigation; where costs are awarded in such cases the actual amounts taxed and allowed in respect of professional fees should be nominal, and the balance awarded only in respect of disbursements, so as to avoid a chilling effect on access to the courts and the growth of constitutional jurisprudence.
Civil Procedure Act s.27 — Construction in conformity with the Constitution under Article 274
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, requiring costs to follow the event, must be construed under Article 274 of the Constitution so as to conform with Articles 50 and 137; when applied to constitutional petitions and references it is no longer mandatory but regulatory, since a rule exposing public interest litigants to costs would abridge their constitutional rights and is void to the extent of the inconsistency under Article 2(2).
Costs — Illegality — Items allowed contrary to the Rules and unproven VAT
A court cannot sanction an illegality once it is brought to its attention; items in a bill of costs allowed in contravention of the Rules will be taxed off, and a claim for VAT will be disallowed where no proof of the law firm's VAT registration is provided.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (17)

  • Attorney General v Theodore Sekikubo and 4 Others (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 13 of 2016)
  • Lanyero Sarah v Electoral Commission and Lanyero Molly (Court of Appeal Civil Reference No. 225 of 2013)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arab Espanol (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Akisoferi Michael Ogola v Akika Othieno Emmanuel and Another (Court of Appeal No. 18 of 1999)
  • Obiga Kania v Wadri Kassiano Ezati and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Reference No. 32 of 2004)
  • Ngoma Ngime v Electoral Commission and Hon. Winnie Byanyima (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Zachary Olum and Another v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2004)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Advocates for Natural Resources Governance and 2 Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2012)
  • Col (Rtd) Kizza Besigye v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and Electoral Commission (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Wambugu v Public Service Commission [1972] EA 296
  • Prince J. Mpuga Rukidi v Prince Solomon Iguru and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1994)
  • Attorney General v Major Gen. David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Kwizera vs Attorney General, Supreme Court Constitution Appeal No of 2008
  • Iyamulema David v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2013)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Emmanuel Nsubuga (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Nipun Norattam Bhatia v Crane Bank Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2006)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Twinobusingye v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 27 of 2013) [2018] UGCC 2 (30 April 2018)
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.