Wakilii

Uganda Taxi Operators & Drivers Association v Uganda Revenue Authority (Taxation Civil Reference 25 of 2017)

Supreme Court · [2020] UGSC 13 · 2020 Reference Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference under Rule 106 from the ruling of the Deputy Registrar (taxing officer) on taxation of costs in Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2015
Decision
Reference partly allowed; instruction fee increased from Shs 50,000,000 to Shs 100,000,000 and the total bill of costs to Shs 101,593,000; no order as to costs

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

On a reference from a taxing officer's ruling, the Supreme Court held that the refund of VAT and computed interest awarded in the courts below did not constitute the 'amount involved in the appeal', because the appeal turned solely on interpretation of the Value Added Tax Act and the monetary award was not an issue for determination. The taxing officer therefore did not err in declining to treat the subject matter as having a value. The court nonetheless found the Shs 50,000,000 instruction fee, while not manifestly low, an inadequate reimbursement for the work of successfully resisting the appeal, and increased it to Shs 100,000,000. The reference partly succeeded.

Outcome

Reference partly allowed; instruction fee increased from Shs 50,000,000 to Shs 100,000,000 and the total bill of costs to Shs 101,593,000; no order as to costs

Facts

The applicant association had successfully resisted the Uganda Revenue Authority's appeal to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2015) concerning whether its management of taxi parks on behalf of Kampala City Council was incidental to passenger transport services and so exempt from VAT. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal, which had ordered a refund of VAT of Shs 3,903,136,565 with interest, and awarded the applicant costs. The Deputy Registrar, as taxing officer, taxed the applicant's bill of costs of Shs 5,001,593,500 down to Shs 51,593,000, of which Shs 50,000,000 was the instruction fee. The applicant referenced the taxation, contending the award was manifestly low given the subject-matter value (the refund plus compounded interest, said to approximate Shs 35,000,000,000) and the principle of consistency. The respondent contended the appeal concerned only interpretation of the Value Added Tax Act, with no monetary value attached.

Issues

  1. Whether the reference was incompetent under Rule 106(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court for want of a timely formal application to the taxing officer.
  2. Whether the monetary refund and computed interest awarded in the courts below constituted the 'amount involved in the appeal' / the value of the subject matter for assessing instruction fees.
  3. Whether the instruction fee of Shs 50,000,000 allowed by the taxing officer was manifestly low and warranted interference.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is not upheld.
  • The reference partly succeeds.
  • The instruction fee is increased from Shs 50,000,000 to Shs 100,000,000.
  • The total bill of costs is increased to Shs 101,593,000.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Meaning of 'the amount involved in the appeal'
Damages or the value of the subject matter awarded in the lower courts do not constitute the 'amount involved in the appeal' for assessing instruction fees unless they were themselves an issue or question for determination in the appeal.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Instruction fee — Assessment principles
There is no formula for assessing an instruction fee; the taxing officer must balance fairly reimbursing the successful litigant, maintaining remuneration sufficient to attract advocates to the profession, and keeping costs low enough that access to court is not confined to the wealthy.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Reference — Interference with taxing officer's discretion
The assessment of instruction fees lies within the taxing officer's discretion and will not be interfered with on reference unless there is a compelling reason, such as an error in principle or an award that is manifestly high or low.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Consistency in awards
While consistency in the level of costs awarded is desirable, it cannot be applied with mathematical precision; each case is attended by its own peculiar circumstances which the taxing officer must take into account.
Civil Procedure — Reference — Preliminary objection — Proceeding on the merits
Where the parties have filed their pleadings as directed by the court, the court may, in the interest of justice, decline to uphold a preliminary objection to a taxation reference and proceed to determine the reference on its merits.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (19)

  • Alexander J'Okello v Kayondo & Co. Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Bank of Uganda v Trespert Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1997)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1993)
  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Services Limited (Court of Appeal Reference No. 13 of 2005)
  • Utex Industries v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Consolidated Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • American Express International Banking Corporation v Atul Kumar Sumantbhai Patel (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1985)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufacturers Ltd (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 33 of 1999)
  • Paul K. Ssemogerere & Another v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 5 of 2001)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani & Another (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
  • Muwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General (Civil Reference No. 38 of 2017)
  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2008)
  • Mbale Resort Hotel (U) Ltd v Babcon (U) Limited (Taxation Civil Reference No. 18 of 2018)
  • Premchand and Raichand -vs- Quarry Service (No.3)
  • Simpson's Sales (London) Ltd. -vs- Herndon Corporation (1964), A L.L.E.R. 833
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board -vs- Jaffer Brothers
  • Pardhan Vs Osman (1969) EA 528

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Taxi Operators & Drivers Association v Uganda Revenue Authority (Taxation Civil Reference 25 of 2017) [2020] UGSC 13 (10 June 2020)
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.