Wakilii

Uganda National Examinations Board v The Management Committee of Kabiito Primary School & Ors (CIVIL APPEALS NO. 034 AND NO. 35 OF 2015)

High Court · [2016] UGHCCD 89 · 2016 Appeals Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeals from taxation of costs by the Taxing Master in respect of two consolidated Miscellaneous Applications for Judicial Review
Decision
Appeals partly allowed; instruction fees award upheld but Taxing Master found to have erred on procedural ground regarding complexity; transport costs item allowed in cross-appeal

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 the Taxing Master did not err in awarding UGX 100,000,000 as instruction fees for two consolidated Judicial Review applications involving nullified PLE results of 270 minors, the matter being urgent and of great public interest. However, the Taxing Master erred in considering the matter complex without a Certificate of Complexity issued by the trial judge as required by Schedule 6 item 1(a)(ix) of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations. Appeals allowed in part; each party to bear own costs.

Outcome

Appeals partly allowed; instruction fees award upheld but Taxing Master found to have erred on procedural ground regarding complexity; transport costs item allowed in cross-appeal

Facts

The respondents filed two Miscellaneous Applications for Judicial Review (No. 18 and No. 22 of 2010) challenging the appellant UNEB's nullification of PLE results of 270 minors from three primary schools who sat examinations in 2009. The High Court consolidated both applications and allowed them, quashing the cancellation, directing release of results, and awarding each minor UGX 500,000 as general damages plus costs. The respondents filed Bills of Costs claiming over UGX 277 million and UGX 267 million respectively. On taxation, the Taxing Master awarded UGX 110,522,500 and UGX 109,540,000 respectively, including UGX 100,000,000 as instruction fees. UNEB appealed the instruction fees award as excessive. The respondents cross-appealed challenging the award as manifestly low and the disallowance of a transport costs item.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Master erred in law when she awarded the Respondents UGX 100,000,000 as instruction fees for applications for Judicial Review, a sum which is excessive in view of the subject matter and in disregard of the principles governing taxation of costs and the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I 267-4.
  2. Whether the Taxing Master erred in law when she erroneously took into account an alleged complexity of the matter in the absence of a Certificate of complexity as described by Schedule 6 item 1(a)(ix) of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations S.I 267-4.

Orders

  • Civil Appeals No. 34 and No. 35 of 2015 allowed in part.
  • The award of UGX 100,000,000 as instruction fees upheld.
  • Ground 2 succeeds — Taxing Master erred in considering complexity without Certificate of Complexity from trial judge.
  • Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2015 (cross-appeal) allowed in part.
  • An award of UGX 1,000,000 in respect of item 55 (transport costs) in Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2010 made.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Assessment Principles
A Taxing Officer must first identify the basic fee prescribed in Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, then consider whether that basic fee should be increased or reduced having regard to the circumstances of the transaction, the nature and extent of the interest involved, the labour and responsibility entailed, and the number, complexity and importance of documents, placing a fair value on the work and responsibility involved rather than applying a multiplication factor.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Judicial Review Applications — Public Interest Matters
Where Judicial Review applications involve matters of great public interest, are urgent requiring exceptional dispatch, involve a large number of minors as parties, and require interviews of multiple witnesses and examination of multiple documents, the Taxing Officer may properly exercise discretion to award instruction fees substantially above the minimum prescribed fee without a Certificate of Complexity, provided the award is justified by the nature and urgency of the work.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Certificate of Complexity — Requirement
Where a Taxing Officer considers a matter complex and increases instruction fees on that ground, a Certificate of Complexity from the trial judge specifying the fraction or percentage increase is required under Schedule 6 item 1(a)(ix) of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations. A Taxing Officer who did not entertain the matter cannot assess complexity independently where the trial judge has not issued such a certificate.
Civil Procedure — Appeals from Taxation — Interference with Taxing Officer's Discretion — Exceptional Cases
A judge will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's assessment of reasonable fees except in exceptional cases, namely where the Taxing Officer applied a wrong principle either expressly or by inference from an award that is manifestly excessive or manifestly low, and the error substantially affected the quantum decision such that upholding the amount would cause injustice to one of the parties.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Wamala Nsubuga & Anor (HCP 11 of 1982)
  • Premchad Raichard Ltd & Another v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & Another (No. 3) [1972] EA 162
  • Nyangito & Co. Advocates v Doinyo lessos Creameries Ltd [2014] eKLR
  • Opa Pharmacy Ltd v Howse & Mcgeorge Ltd Kampala (HCMA No. 13 of 1970)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (SCCA No. 23 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda National Examinations Board v The Management Committee of Kabiito Primary School & Ors (CIVIL APPEALS NO. 034 AND NO. 35 OF 2015) [2016] UGHCCD 89 (4 November 2016)
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.