Wakilii

Uganda Development Bank v Oil Seeds Uganda Limited (Misc. Appl. No. 610 of 1997)

High Court · [1999] UGHC 62 · 1999 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal against taxation of costs by the taxing master in the High Court
Decision
Appeal dismissed — taxation of costs 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

Held that instruction fees for advocates taking over a case may be claimed by subsequent counsel for the successful party from the losing party. The taxing master correctly applied the formula under Schedule 6 paragraph 1(a)(iv) where the subject matter was determinable at UGX 4,114,611,524. The award of instruction fees was not excessive where the correct formula was employed and the taxing master's discretion was properly exercised. Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed — taxation of costs upheld

Facts

Oil Seeds Uganda Ltd borrowed money from Uganda Development Bank. A dispute arose and was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded UGX 300,000,000 to the plaintiff, less accrued interest. The plaintiff then brought a chamber summons application seeking to set aside part of the arbitrator's award (UGX 208,567,424) and to remit two other disallowed claims (UGX 2,882,400,000 and UGX 1,023,644,800) to an arbitrator for reconsideration. Kityo J dismissed the application. The Supreme Court allowed an appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court. Byamugisha J allowed the application in part, remitting the two claims to a new arbitrator. M/S. Bitangaro & Co, Advocates, who took over representation of the respondent from earlier counsel, submitted a bill of costs for taxation. The taxing master awarded instruction fees of UGX 42,554,112 based on the total subject matter of UGX 4,214,612,224. The appellant challenged the taxation.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing master erred in holding that the subject matter was determinable such that Scale 1(a)(iv) of the 6th Schedule applied.
  2. Whether the taxing master erred in awarding instruction fees of UGX 42,554,112 based on a figure of UGX 4,214,612,224.
  3. Whether M/S. Bitangaro & Co, Advocates were entitled to instruction fees when they were not the advocates instructed on 12 October 1994.
  4. Whether the award of UGX 42,586,912 was manifestly excessive.
  5. Whether the award constituted an abuse of court process and occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Change of Advocates
Where advocates take over conduct of a matter from previous counsel, the current advocates may claim instruction fees from the losing party to reimburse the client who paid the fee, even though they were not the advocates who initially filed the application.
Taxation of Costs — Determinable Subject Matter — Chamber Summons Application
A chamber summons application seeking to set aside monetary awards and remit disallowed claims to an arbitrator has a determinable subject matter comprised of the monetary figures in issue, such that the taxation formula under Schedule 6 paragraph 1(a)(iv) applies.
Taxation of Costs — Excessive Award — Taxing Master's Discretion
An award of instruction fees arrived at by applying the correct formula to an ascertainable subject matter is not manifestly excessive. The taxing master's discretion to allow or disallow items will not be interfered with unless wrongly applied, and the discretion is properly exercised where the formula and basis used are consistent with previous taxation in the same proceedings.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 1996, 6th Schedule para. 1(a)(iv)
  • Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 1996, 3rd Schedule Regulation 16(1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Margaret Ziwa -vs- Nava Nabagesera
  • Yako/Ntate -vs- Samu Lwanga
  • Makula International Ltd v His Emminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Development Bank v Oil Seeds Uganda Limited (Misc. Appl. No. 610 of 1997) [1999] UGHC 62 (16 June 1999)
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.