Wakilii

Uganda Bankers (Employers) Association v National Union of Clerical Commercial Professional and Technical Employees (Miscellaneous Cause 183 of 1996)

High Court Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of costs arising from dismissal of judicial review application
Decision
Appeal against taxation dismissed; taxation by the taxing officer 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 dismissed the appeal against taxation of costs. The court held that the taxing officer properly applied the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 1996, which came into force on 2 February 1996 and replaced the schedules to the 1982 Rules, even though the bill of costs was filed before the amendment. The court found no evidence that wrong principles were applied and held that the quantum awarded was not so excessive as to warrant interference, given the substantive nature of the judicial review application and the amount of preparation required.

Outcome

Appeal against taxation dismissed; taxation by the taxing officer upheld

Facts

The appellant unsuccessfully applied for orders of certiorari and prohibition to quash an Industrial Court award in Industrial Cause No. 2 of 1993. The High Court dismissed the application without going into the merits, holding that the Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act does not apply to awards made by the Industrial Court. The respondent filed a bill of costs seeking UGX 240,052,500. The taxing officer taxed the bill on 18 March 1996 and allowed UGX 40,052,500, including UGX 40,000,000 for instruction fees on Item 1. The appellant appealed against this taxation on four grounds, principally challenging the application of the 1996 amended Rules and contending that the quantum awarded was excessive. The appellant argued that the 1982 Rules should have applied because the bill of costs was filed on 5 December 1995 before the 1996 amendment came into force.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer applied wrong principles in taxing the bill of costs.
  2. Whether the taxing officer erred in law by applying the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 1996 instead of the 1982 Rules.
  3. Whether the taxing officer failed to exercise his discretion judicially by awarding excessive costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Applicable Rules — Amendment Coming into Force After Filing of Bill
Where rules governing taxation of costs are amended after a bill of costs has been filed but before taxation occurs, the taxing officer must apply the amended rules in force at the date of taxation, as the old and amended rules are read as one from the date the amendment comes into force.
Civil Procedure — Appeals from Taxation — Grounds — Failure to Specify Wrong Principles
An appeal against taxation of costs on the ground that the taxing officer applied wrong principles will fail where the appellant does not identify or state what the alleged wrong principles were, either in the chamber summons, the supporting affidavit, or in submissions.
Civil Procedure — Appeals from Taxation — Standard of Review — Quantum
On questions of quantum of costs allowed by a taxing officer, the court will only interfere where the award is so high or so low as to amount to an injustice to one party; the taxing officer's decision on quantum is generally final absent exceptional circumstances.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Assessment Factors
In assessing instruction fees, the taxing officer considers the amount of work involved in preparation for hearing, the complexity and importance of the case, and to some degree the amount involved; the fact that an application is dismissed on a preliminary point does not reduce the preparation required by counsel for the respondent, who must make as thorough a study as counsel for the applicant.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Advocates Act s.61(1)
  • Taxation of Costs (Appeals and References) Rules r.3
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 1982
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 1996 r.1
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 1996 r.3
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 1982 r.34
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 1982 r.35
  • Interpretation Decree s.17(1)
  • Judicature Act s.34
  • Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act

Cases cited (5)

  • Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union v Uganda Transport Company Limited (Miscellaneous Cause No. 99 of 1972)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd and Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and others (No. 3) [1973] EA 162
  • In the Estate of Orgilvie, Orgilvie v Massey [1910] 103 LT 154
  • Pardhan v Osman [1969] EA 528

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Bankers (Employers) Association v National Union of Clerical Commercial Professional and Technical Employees (Miscellaneous Cause 183 of 1996)
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.