Wakilii

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

High Court · [1996] UGHC 105 · 1996 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal against taxation of costs arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 171 of 1995
Decision
Appeal against taxation dismissed; taxation order of UGX 40,052,500 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 correctly 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. The taxing officer exercised his discretion judicially in awarding instruction fees of UGX 40,000,000 on item 1, considering the substantial nature of the application for certiorari and prohibition involving intricate points of law and public importance concerning industrial relations. Cross-appeal against disallowance of item 2 also failed.

Outcome

Appeal against taxation dismissed; taxation order of UGX 40,052,500 upheld

Facts

The appellant appealed against a taxation of costs arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 171 of 1995, which was an application for orders of certiorari and prohibition to quash and prohibit an Industrial Court award dated 18 April 1995. The High Court had dismissed the application. The taxing officer taxed off UGX 200,000,000 from item 1 of the bill of costs (instructions to defend case involving intricate points of law where the value of the subject matter was stated as UGX 8 billion) and allowed UGX 40,000,000. The appellant contended that the taxing officer applied wrong principles, erred in applying the 1996 Amendment Rules instead of the 1982 Rules, and awarded excessive costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing officer applied wrong principles in taxation of costs.
  2. Whether the taxing officer erred in 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 when he awarded costs that were excessive.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Applicable Rules — Amendment Coming into Force During Taxation
Where the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 1996 have come into force before the date of taxation and expressly replace the schedules to the 1982 Rules, and Rule 1 of the 1996 Rules provides that the two sets of rules are to be read as one, the taxing officer must apply the 1996 Rules even though the bill of costs was filed before the amendment came into force.
Taxation of Costs — Quantum — Grounds for Interference on Appeal
On questions of quantum of costs, the decision of the taxing officer is generally final. The court will only interfere where the award is so high or so low as to amount to an injustice to one party. It is a very exceptional case in which the court will review the taxing officer's decision on quantum.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Assessment Factors
In assessing quantum of instruction fees on taxation, the court considers the amount of work involved in preparation for hearing, the difficulty and importance of the case, any peculiar complication in its presentation, and to a variable extent the amount of the subject matter. The fact that an application is dismissed does not necessarily affect the amount of work counsel on either side would have put into preparation for the hearing.
Appeals Against Taxation — Grounds of Appeal Must Be Specified
Where a ground of appeal alleges that the taxing officer applied wrong principles, those principles must be stated in the chamber summons, in the affidavit in support, or in counsel's submissions. Failure to state the alleged wrong principles renders it impossible for the court to decide whether the taxing officer applied wrong principles or not, and the ground of appeal must fail.

Legislation cited (9)

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

Cases cited (7)

  • Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union v Uganda Transport Company Limited [1972] 2 ULR 171
  • 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
  • Kabaka Vs. Muwanqa (supra)
  • In the Estate of Ogilvie, Ogilvie v Massey [1910] 103 LT 154
  • Pardhan v Osman [1969] EA 528
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd and Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd and Others (No. 3) [1972] EA 162

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) [1996] UGHC 105 (22 August 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.