Wakilii

Uganda Bankers ( Employers Association) v National Union of Clerical Commercial Professionals and Technical Employees (Civil Appeal 51 of 1996)

Court of Appeal · [1998] UGCA 53 · 1998 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from High Court decision upholding a taxing officer's assessment of instruction fees in taxation proceedings
Decision
Instruction fee award set aside; bill of costs remitted for re-taxation by another taxing officer under the 1982 Sixth Schedule

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 Court of Appeal held that liability to pay costs accrues when the court makes the order for costs, and that the taxation must therefore be governed by the rules in force at that date. As costs were ordered on 17 August 1995, the 1982 Remuneration Rules and their Sixth Schedule applied, not the 1996 Amendment Rules. The Judge erred in holding the amended Rules applicable and in finding the taxing officer applied no wrong principles. The instruction fee of Shs. 40,000,000 for opposing a chamber application (heard in under a day and dismissed without going into the merits, with no certificate of complexity and unknown value of the subject matter) was manifestly excessive and out of proportion. The appeal was allowed and re-taxation ordered.

Outcome

Instruction fee award set aside; bill of costs remitted for re-taxation by another taxing officer under the 1982 Sixth Schedule

Facts

The National Union brought an action against the Uganda Bankers (Employers) Association in the Industrial Court, which made an award in favour of the Union. The Association obtained leave and filed an application for writs of certiorari and prohibition to quash the Industrial Court award. That application was heard and dismissed with costs on 17 August 1995, the hearing not taking a whole day and the application being dismissed without going into the merits. The Association filed its bill of costs on 5 December 1995 claiming Shs. 240,000,000 as instruction fees. Taxation was conducted on 31 March 1996, after the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 1996 came into force. The taxing officer applied the amended scale and allowed Shs. 40,000,000 as instruction fees. No certificate of complexity had been obtained, and the value of the subject matter was not on record. The Association appealed to a High Court Judge, who upheld the assessment, prompting this further appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellate Judge erred in holding that the taxing officer did not apply wrong principles when the alleged wrong principles were not stated in the chamber summons, affidavits, or counsel's submissions.
  2. Whether the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 1996 or the Sixth Schedule to the 1982 Rules applied to the taxation.
  3. When liability to pay costs accrues for the purposes of determining which taxation rules apply.
  4. Whether the instruction fee of Shs. 40,000,000 allowed by the taxing officer and upheld by the Judge was manifestly excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Award of Shs. 40,000,000 as instruction fee set aside.
  • Bill of costs to be re-taxed in accordance with the Sixth Schedule to the 1982 Remuneration Rules by another taxing officer.
  • Appellant awarded costs of the appeal and in the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Costs — Taxation — Accrual of Liability to Pay Costs
Liability to pay costs accrues when the court makes the order for costs to be paid; taxation is only the process of determining the quantum, so the applicable taxation rules are those in force when the costs order was made, not those in force at the date of taxation.
Repeal — Preservation of Accrued Rights and Liabilities — Interpretation Decree s.13(2)(c)
Where an enactment repeals another, section 13(2)(c) of the Interpretation Decree preserves any right, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed enactment, so a liability for costs that accrued before the amendment continues to be governed by the earlier rules.
Costs — Instruction Fees — Certificate of Complexity under the Sixth Schedule Proviso
Where a higher instruction fee is sought on account of the complexity of a case, the advocate must apply to the presiding Judge or Magistrate for a certificate specifying the increase; absent such a certificate the taxing officer cannot rely on complexity to move from the prescribed basic fee to a substantially higher figure.
Costs — Instruction Fees — When Manifestly Excessive
An instruction fee is manifestly excessive where it is out of proportion to the value and importance of the suit and the work involved; while the prescribed scale fee is not the only consideration, an award that ignores the scale, the short hearing, the dismissal without going into the merits and an unknown value of the subject matter is an incorrect exercise of discretion.
Costs — Appeal Against Taxation — Grounds for Interference
An appellate court may interfere with a taxing officer's award only where it was arrived at by an error of law or the application of a wrong principle, or where the fee is so manifestly excessive or low as to indicate that it must have been arrived at unjudicially.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Advocates Act s.61(1)
  • Judicature Act s.34
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 1982 rule 34
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 1982 rule 35
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 1982 Sixth Schedule
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 1996
  • Interpretation Decree 1976 (Decree 18) s.13(2)

Cases cited (8)

  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor. (1982) H.C.B. 11
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virder and Another (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
  • In the Estate of Ogilvie, Ogilvie v Massey [1910] 103 L.T.R 154
  • Arthur v Nyeri Electricity Undertakings [1961] E.A. 492
  • Premchad Richard v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & Others (1972) E.A. 162
  • Haida Bin Mohamed Elmanchry and others v Khadija Bint Bin Saliru (1956) 23 EACA 313
  • Taj Deen vrs. Dobrosklonsky and others (1957) E.A. 379
  • In the matter of M/s Kayondo & Co. Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)

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 Professionals and Technical Employees (Civil Appeal 51 of 1996) [1998] UGCA 53 (28 April 1998)
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.