Wakilii

Yahaya Kirisa v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 315 of 2002)

High Court · [2005] UGHC 144 · 2005 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from taxation of costs following consent judgment in High Court Civil Suit No. 40 of 1991
Decision
Taxing master's ruling set aside and instruction fees increased to Shs 20 million

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 allowed the appeal, finding that the taxing master's award of instruction fees was manifestly low. The court held that the taxing master correctly applied the Sixth Schedule scale but failed to consider additional factors including the value of the subject matter, the complexity of the case, the time involved, and prevailing economic conditions. The instruction fees were increased from Shs 10,887,500 to Shs 20,000,000.

Outcome

Taxing master's ruling set aside and instruction fees increased to Shs 20 million

Facts

The appellant's counsel filed an appeal against a taxation ruling by the Registrar dated 16 April 2002. The underlying suit (Civil Suit No. 40 of 1991) concerned property comprised in LRV 652 Folio 2 Plot 2 Katego Road, Kampala. The suit was settled by consent on 6 January 2000, with judgment entered in favour of the appellant for US$539,084 plus Shs 4 million. The appellant subsequently filed a bill of costs claiming instruction fees of 10% of Shs 970,351,200 (the Uganda Shilling equivalent of US$539,084 at that time). The taxing master allowed instruction fees of only Shs 10,887,500. The appellant argued this was manifestly low and the taxing master misdirected herself by refusing to exceed the Sixth Schedule scale. The case had taken nearly nine years to settle and involved very valuable property worth over 900 million shillings.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxing master erred in awarding instruction fees of Shs 10,887,500, which were manifestly low.
  2. Whether the taxing master misdirected herself by declining to exceed the Sixth Schedule scale when awarding instruction fees.
  3. Whether instruction fees should be increased to 10% of the value of the subject matter.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Ruling of the taxing officer set aside.
  • Instruction fees increased to Shs 20,000,000.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Taxation of Costs — Assessment of Instruction Fees — Application of Sixth Schedule
When taxing instruction fees under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 1982, the taxing officer must first find the appropriate scale fee in the Sixth Schedule, then consider whether that basic fee should be increased or decreased, giving reasons for the decision. The officer does not arrive at a figure by multiplying the scale fee by a multiplication factor, but places what is considered a fair value upon the work and responsibility involved.
Taxation of Costs — Factors for Assessment Beyond Basic Scale
In assessing instruction fees, the taxing officer must consider additional factors beyond the Sixth Schedule scale, including the value of the subject matter, the nature and importance of the case, the amount of time involved, the need to attract young lawyers to the legal profession, the need for consistency, and prevailing economic conditions.
Taxation of Costs — Appeal from Taxation — Grounds for Interference
An appellate court should not interfere with the assessment of a taxing officer who is best fitted for the job except in exceptional cases: firstly, where the award is manifestly excessive or low; secondly, where there has been misdirection; and thirdly, where the award has been arrived at on wrong principles.
Taxation of Costs — Principles Governing Awards
In taxation of costs, the following principles must be balanced: costs should not rise to such a level as to confine access to courts to the wealthy; a successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed for the costs incurred; the general level of remuneration of advocates must be such as to attract recruits to the profession; and so far as practicable there should be consistency in the awards made.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (10)

  • Nicholas Rossous v Gulamhussein (Court of Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
  • Alex Okello v Kayondo (Supreme Court, Court of Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services [1972] EA 182
  • Mukula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11
  • HCCS 1104/99 NHCC-Vs-Matsiko
  • Gullamhusein Habib
  • Uganda Blanket Manufactures [1975] Ltd
  • Attorney General v Uganda Blanket Manufactures (Civil Application No. 17 of 1993)
  • National Housing Construction
  • Simpson Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Herdson Corporation [1964] 3 All ER 833

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Yahaya Kirisa v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 315 of 2002) [2005] UGHC 144 (1 September 2005)
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.