Uganda Revenue Authority v Rock Petroleum (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal 199 of 2013)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was filed within time under Rule 83(2), since time ran from availing of the complete High Court record, and that an appeal lies as of right from a High Court order made under the Advocates Act. On the merits, it held that a bill of costs in contentious High Court proceedings must be taxed under the Sixth Schedule, and a Taxing Master cannot apply a higher percentage rate without a mandatory certificate of complexity. The suit, brought by originating summons for interpretation of law, was simple; there was no basis for treating the excess-tax figure as the subject matter. The appeal was allowed and instruction fees reduced to shs. 3,000,000.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; instruction fees reduced from shs. 5,000,000,000 to shs. 3,000,000 and excess costs paid to be refunded

Facts

Rock Petroleum (U) Ltd brought a representative suit by originating summons on behalf of 42 petroleum companies seeking determination of whether Uganda Revenue Authority could legally impose increased excise duty on diesel and petrol under the Excise Tariff (Amendment) Act No. 5 of 2008. The court determined the question and ordered a refund of excess duty collected, later audited at shs. 48,631,499,082 for all 42 companies. The respondent's advocates filed a bill of costs stating the subject matter value as shs. 58,184,191,050. The Taxing Master applied 10% of that value, awarding instruction fees of shs. 5,878,419,705. On reference, the High Court Judge reduced this to shs. 5,000,000,000. URA appealed, arguing the taxation should have followed the Sixth Schedule, that no certificate of complexity existed, and that the suit was a simple interpretation matter with the true amount due to the respondent being only shs. 3,350,560.

Issues

1. Whether the appeal was filed within the time stipulated by the Rules of the Court of Appeal.
2. Whether the appellant had a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order of a High Court Judge arising from a taxation reference.
3. Whether the Taxing Master and the High Court Judge erred in applying a percentage of the value of the subject matter, rather than the Sixth Schedule, in taxing instruction fees.
4. Whether the Taxing Master could apply a higher percentage rate without a certificate of complexity from the trial court.
5. Whether the value of the subject matter of the suit was correctly determined for the purposes of taxation.

Orders

• Application No. 45 of 2013 dismissed with costs to the respondent (appellant in the main appeal).
• Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court in High Court Taxation Reference No. 009 of 2009 set aside and substituted.
• Instruction fee payable to the respondent on item one of the bill of costs determined at shs. 3,000,000.
• All money paid to the respondent or his advocates as legal costs to be refunded less the taxed costs, with the instruction fee therein being shs. 3,000,000, within thirty days.
• Money deposited in court as security to be refunded forthwith.
• The respondent to pay the costs of this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (14)

• Constitution of Uganda Article 134(2)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.66
• Judicature Act s.10
• Judicature Act s.11
• Advocates Act Cap 267 s.77
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations reg.6(ix)
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations reg.36
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations reg.37
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Sixth Schedule
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.30(1)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.83
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.83(2)
• Excise Tariff (Amendment) Act No. 5 of 2008

Cases cited (7)

• Makula International Ltd vs His Eminence Emmanuel Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor 1982 HCB 11
• Bank of Uganda v Transroad Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1997)
• In re Alexander Okello and Kagondo & Co. Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
• Mumtaz Kassam v Ebrahim Kassam (Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2006)
• Begumisa v Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
• Shell (U) Ltd and 9 Others v Muwema and Mugerwa Advocates and Solicitors (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2013)
• Moon v Atherton [1972] Q.B 435 per Lord Denning in Market v Knight Steamship Co. Ltd [1910] 2 QB 435

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Rock Petroleum (U) Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal 4 of 2017)

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