Wakilii

Uganda Revenue Authority v Ddegeya Trading Stores (Civil Suit 938 of 1993)

High Court · [1996] UGHC 100 · 1996 Revision Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Uganda Revenue Authority under Section 84 of the Civil Procedure Act seeking revision of the Registrar's taxation order entered by consent
Decision
Taxation order set aside; matter remitted to Registrar for fresh taxation according to law

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 High Court may exercise revisionary powers under Section 84 of the Civil Procedure Act where the Registrar acted in exercise of jurisdiction with injustice. The Registrar acted unjustly when he based the instruction fee on the counter-claim amount (over UGX 700 million) rather than the amount actually awarded in judgment (UGX 1.5 million). The taxation order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh taxation according to law. Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Taxation order set aside; matter remitted to Registrar for fresh taxation according to law

Facts

Obadi Enterprises filed Civil Suit 938 of 1993 against Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) and Ddegeya Trading Stores. Ddegeya Trading Stores counter-claimed against URA seeking special damages over UGX 300 million, general damages, punitive damages, interest and costs. On 12 July 1996 judgment was delivered in which Ddegeya succeeded in its counter-claim and was awarded UGX 1 million general damages, UGX 500,000 punitive damages, interest and costs only. By consent of both parties, the Registrar taxed Ddegeya's Bill of Costs at UGX 17,790,000 plus 17% VAT. URA requested the Registrar to revise the taxation order but the Registrar declined and advised URA to appeal. URA filed both a Notice of Appeal and this application seeking revision under Section 84 of the Civil Procedure Act, arguing that the instruction fee was wrongly based on the counter-claim amount rather than the judgment amount.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court can exercise revisionary powers under Section 84 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside a taxation order entered by consent.
  2. Whether the Registrar acted with injustice when he based the instruction fee on the amount claimed in the counter-claim rather than the amount awarded in judgment.
  3. Whether a consent taxation order can be set aside absent fraud or undue influence.

Orders

  • The taxation in respect of the respondent's Bill of Costs allowed by the Registrar at UGX 17,790,000 plus 17% VAT is unjust and is hereby set aside.
  • The respondent's Bill of Costs is invalid and is hereby quashed.
  • The respondent shall prepare a fresh Bill of Costs which is honest and done according to law.
  • The fresh Bill of Costs shall be submitted to the Registrar of the High Court who shall tax it in the presence of both parties in light of the contents of this revisional order.
  • The respondent shall pay the costs of this matter.
  • Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Revisionary Jurisdiction — Section 84 Civil Procedure Act — When High Court may exercise revision over inferior tribunal
The High Court may exercise revisionary powers under Section 84 of the Civil Procedure Act where a tribunal acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity or injustice, provided the parties are given opportunity to be heard and the exercise of revision would not involve serious hardship from lapse of time or other cause.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fee — Basis of calculation where counter-claim succeeds but special damages not awarded
Where a counter-claim succeeds but the court awards only general and punitive damages without awarding special damages, the instruction fee for taxation purposes must be based on the amount actually awarded in judgment, not on the amount claimed in the counter-claim or interest computed on the unawarded special damages.
Taxation of Costs — Purpose of remuneration rules — Prevention of injustice and undue hardship
The Advocates (Remuneration And Taxation of Costs) Rules are intended to determine fair remuneration for advocates in respect of work done, but not to cause undue hardship or injustice to parties in a given situation.
Consent Orders — Taxation by consent — Setting aside for injustice distinct from fraud or undue influence
A taxation order entered by consent may be set aside on revision where the Registrar recorded a consent order contrary to the remuneration rules and the result would be manifestly unjust, without need to prove fraud or undue influence as would be required in a fresh suit to set aside a consent judgment.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • Brooke Bond Liebig (U) Ltd v Malig [1975] EA 266
  • Cause No. 67 of 1981 - In the Matter of an Award of costs - Haji Issa Sebirumbi v

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Revenue Authority v Ddegeya Trading Stores (Civil Suit 938 of 1993) [1996] UGHC 100 (7 October 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.