Wakilii

Xtokassffl v Aliika Othzno Nifiaituzti (election petition 56 of 1998)

High Court · [1999] UGHC 58 · 1999 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation order arising from Election Petition No. 2 of 1996
Decision
Appeal partly allowed with adjustment to reduce the taxation order by UGX 450,000

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 High Court held that the Taxing Officer properly applied the principles of taxation from Premchand Raichand in awarding instruction fees of UGX 10,000,000 and UGX 4,000,000 to leading and second counsel. The court would not interfere with the Taxing Officer's discretion unless the quantum was manifestly excessive or contrary to taxation principles, neither of which was demonstrated. The court disallowed only item 70 (UGX 450,000) relating to proceedings of 17.9.1996, as costs for that day had been awarded to the appellant against the 2nd respondent in any event. The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed with adjustment to reduce the taxation order by UGX 450,000

Facts

Following the 1996 parliamentary elections, the appellant filed Election Petition No. 2 of 1996 against the 1st respondent who was the successful candidate. The appellant lost the election petition. The 1st respondent had obtained a certificate to be represented by two counsel and filed a bill of costs which was taxed at UGX 21,292,000. Instruction fees for leading counsel (Mr. Owori) were taxed at UGX 10,000,000 and for second counsel (Mr. Natsomi) at UGX 4,000,000. The petition went to full hearing and took 4½ days. The appellant appealed the taxation order to the High Court under section 61 of the Advocates Act 1970, challenging the quantum as excessive and contrary to taxation principles.

Issues

  1. Whether the Taxing Officer failed to apply the principles of taxation, resulting in an excessive award that caused a miscarriage of justice.
  2. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in allowing items 2-55 of the bill of costs after having already awarded instruction fees covering the same work.
  3. Whether the Taxing Officer erred in allowing claims under items 53, 70, and 86 that were not proved or properly authorised by law.
  4. Whether the total taxation order of UGX 21,292,000 was excessive and likely to discourage ordinary persons from challenging electoral malpractices.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed save for item 70 of the bill of costs.
  • Taxation order of UGX 21,292,000 to be adjusted by deducting UGX 450,000 disallowed under item 70.
  • The 1st respondent shall recover 3/4 of the costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Principles of Taxation — Premchand Raichand Principles
A Taxing Officer must exercise discretion judiciously along established principles: costs should not rise to a level that confines access to courts to the wealthy; a successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed for costs incurred; the general level of remuneration must attract recruits to the profession; and there should be consistency in awards made.
Taxation of Costs — Appellate Interference — Standard of Review
A court on appeal should not interfere with a Taxing Officer's exercise of discretion merely because costs allowed are high. Interference is warranted only in exceptional circumstances: where costs are manifestly excessive or low, or where taxation was done in disregard of the principles of taxation.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Election Petitions
In determining instruction fees for election petition cases, a Taxing Officer is entitled to consider the political importance of such cases, their tedious nature, the number of hearing days, and the need to properly remunerate advocates to encourage recruitment to the profession.
Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Scope of Coverage
Where a Taxing Officer awards instruction fees, items relating to work necessary for the prosecution of the case (such as pleadings preparation, perusal, and drafting) that are covered by the instruction fees should not be separately allowed unless the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation Rules specifically provide for such separate charges.
Costs Orders — Costs Awarded in Any Event — Effect on Successful Party
Where costs of a particular hearing day have been awarded to a party in any event, irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings, a subsequent bill of costs by another party cannot include costs for that same day. The remedy of the party aggrieved by such an order is to seek review or appeal of the costs order, not to file a bill claiming those costs.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Advocates Act 1970 s.61
  • Advocates (Taxation of Costs, Appeals and References) Rules SI-350-6 r.3
  • Advocates Remuneration and Taxation Rules 1982 SI 3/1993

Cases cited (12)

  • Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services Ltd
  • Cardinal Nsubuga & Anr
  • Thomas James Arthur v Jinja Electricity Undertaking [1951] 3 E.A. 492
  • Nicholas Ouanos v Cylan Messoia and Another (SCCA No. 5 of 1995)
  • Patrick Mwanbi Itur v Uganda Electricity (SCCA No. 11 of 1994)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Plastics Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (SCCA No. 16 of 1993)
  • Birareba Engola Election Petition
  • Omaswa Caesar v Uganda Clays and Another (Election Petition No. 12/3 of 1996)
  • Henry Wetomoi vs George Psiphis & Anr
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 1113/1997
  • Matumbi & Anr vs Sole Electronics
  • Fida Birubwa v Union Insurance Company (HCCS No. 2 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Xtokassffl v Aliika Othzno Nifiaituzti (election petition 56 of 1998) [1999] UGHC 58 (11 February 1999)
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.