Wakilii

Union Trade Center Ltd v Desire and Ors. (Taxation Cause 1 of 2017)

East African Court of Justice · [2018] EACJ 15 · 2018 Bill Taxed at USD 11,084 AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation of costs following dismissal of application for leave to intervene
Decision
Bill of costs substantially reduced from USD 98,503 to USD 11,084

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

The Taxing Officer reduced the applicant's bill of costs from USD 98,503 to USD 11,084. Instruction fees were assessed at USD 9,000 (plus 18% VAT) for an interlocutory application, rejecting the applicant's reliance on costs awarded in final references. The value of the subject matter in the main reference was held irrelevant to taxation of costs for an interlocutory application. Disbursements were disallowed for failure to produce receipts as required by the Rules.

Outcome

Bill of costs substantially reduced from USD 98,503 to USD 11,084

Facts

The applicant filed a bill of costs for USD 98,503 following dismissal of the respondents' Application No. 9 of 2016, which had sought leave to intervene in Reference No. 10 of 2013. The applicant based its claim on the value of the subject matter in the main reference, estimated at USD 10 million. The respondents opposed the bill as exorbitant, arguing it related only to an interlocutory application for leave to intervene. The taxation hearing proceeded on 2 August 2018 with no consent between parties on any items. The applicant relied on previous taxation decisions awarding substantial instruction fees in final references. The respondents argued the costs should reflect the limited nature of an interlocutory application rather than the value of the underlying property dispute.

Issues

  1. What is the appropriate amount of instruction fees to be taxed for an interlocutory application for leave to intervene?
  2. Whether the value of the subject matter in the main reference should determine costs for an interlocutory application.
  3. What amounts should be allowed for perusals, consultations, drafting, and attendances in taxation of costs?
  4. Whether disbursements can be allowed without production of receipts.

Orders

  • Bill of costs taxed at USD 11,084.00 (United States Dollars Eleven thousand and eighty four).
  • Instruction fees taxed at USD 10,620.00 inclusive of 18% VAT.
  • USD 464.00 awarded for all other items including attendance, perusal and drawings.
  • All disbursement items (Items 11-16) taxed off at USD 0.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Interlocutory Applications
In taxation of costs for an interlocutory application, instruction fees must be assessed based on the nature and complexity of the application itself, not on the value of the subject matter in the main reference, and costs awarded in final references are not applicable to interlocutory applications.
Taxation of Costs — Discretion of Taxing Officer
Under Rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule to the EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013, the taxing officer has discretion to assess instruction fees as reasonable, having regard to the amount involved, nature, importance and complexity of the matter, interest of parties, general conduct of proceedings, and all other relevant circumstances.
Taxation of Costs — Disbursements — Production of Receipts
Under Rule 4(2) of the Third Schedule to the EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013, receipts for disbursements must be produced to the taxing officer and copies served on the other party, and disbursements claimed without production of receipts will be taxed off.
Taxation of Costs — Bill of Costs — Itemisation
Items in a bill of costs must be properly separated and itemised under the applicable rules to enable the taxing officer to ascertain how amounts were arrived at; where items are mixed up without proper separation, the taxing officer may allow only a reduced amount.
Taxation of Costs — Reasonableness and Proportionality
Under Rule 11(1) of the Third Schedule to the EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013, the taxing officer shall allow only such costs as appear to have been reasonably incurred for the attainment of justice, and costs incurred through overpayment, extravagance, over-caution, negligence or mistake shall not be allowed.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of East African Community Article 40
  • EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 36
  • EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 9(2)
  • EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 9(4)
  • EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 11(1)
  • EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 7(a)
  • EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 6(f)
  • EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 3
  • EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 4
  • EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 4(2)
  • EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 8
  • EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 6(d)
  • EACJ Rules of Procedure 2013 Third Schedule Rule 6(b)

Cases cited (8)

  • Attorney General of Kenya v Prof Peter Anyang Nyong'o (Taxation Cause No. 5 of 2010)
  • Among Anita v Attorney General of Uganda (Taxation Cause No. 5 of 2013)
  • Joreth Limited v Kigano and Associates (2002) 1 EA 92
  • Plaxeda Rugumba v Attorney General of Rwanda (Taxation Cause No. 2 of 2012)
  • Hon. Sam Njuba v Hon. Sitenda Sebalu (Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2013)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of EAC (Taxation Cause No. 4 of 2013)
  • Kenya Ports Authority v Modern Holdings (Taxation Cause No. 4 of 2010)
  • Inspector General of the Government of Uganda v Godfrey Magezi (Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Union Trade Center Ltd v Desire and Ors. (Taxation Cause 1 of 2017) [2018] EACJ 15 (14 August 2018)
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.