Wakilii

Zonobia v Lubega & 4 Others (Taxation Reference 123 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 412 · 2023 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation reference from decision of taxing officer in Miscellaneous Application No. 100 of 2017
Decision
Bill of costs reduced from UGX 27,778,970 to UGX 23,968,750

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 partly allowed the taxation reference, finding that while the taxing officer properly exercised discretion on instruction fees, numerous specific items in the bill of costs were either not provided for under the regulations, formed part of instruction fees, or were manifestly excessive. The court overruled preliminary objections that the reference was incompetent, holding that affidavits may be deponed by non-parties who are in the know of facts and that the order sought, though inelegantly worded, clearly indicated the relief desired. The bill of costs was reduced from UGX 27,778,970 to UGX 23,968,750.

Outcome

Bill of costs reduced from UGX 27,778,970 to UGX 23,968,750

Facts

The respondents obtained costs in Miscellaneous Application No. 100 of 2017, which was dismissed. They filed a bill of costs estimated at UGX 38,461,500. The taxing master taxed the bill ex parte on 24 May 2019 and allowed it at UGX 27,778,970. The appellant challenged this award, alleging that the taxing master erred in allowing the bill ex parte, exercised his discretion improperly, allowed costs not provided for by regulations, and awarded fees that were manifestly excessive and unreasonable. The appellant specifically contended that some items related to a different miscellaneous application (No. 101 of 2017), that certain items were not justified under the regulations, and that transport costs and other disbursements were inflated. The respondents countered that the appellant's lawyers were properly served, failed to attend the taxation hearing after the matter was stood over, and that the taxing master properly exercised his discretion.

Issues

  1. Whether the costs awarded by the taxing officer should be varied.
  2. Whether the taxation reference is incompetent for being supported by an affidavit of a non-party.
  3. Whether the taxation reference is bad in law for seeking a strange order.
  4. Whether the taxing officer exercised his discretion judiciously in awarding costs of UGX 27,778,970.
  5. Whether specific items in the bill of costs were allowed contrary to the regulations or were manifestly excessive.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The bill of costs is adjusted and allowed at UGX 23,968,750.
  • The appellant is awarded costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Affidavits in Support — Competence of Affidavit Deponed by Non-Party
Order 19 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not limit a person who is not a party to the dispute from deponing an affidavit. Any party who is in the know of the facts and can prove the facts of the case may depone an affidavit, including an advocate who is not representing the party in the same case.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Appeals from Taxing Officer — Grounds for Interference
A court will interfere with a taxing officer's decision if it is proved that the amount taxed was manifestly excessive or low, or if there is proof that the taxing officer followed a wrong principle in reaching the decision. The court will not normally interfere simply because it would have awarded a different figure.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Instruction Fees — Exercise of Discretion Where Subject Matter Not Ascertainable
Where the value of the subject matter is not ascertainable, the taxing officer exercises discretion on what is considered reasonable for instruction fees. The Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations specify a minimum instruction fee but not a maximum.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Disallowance of Items — Items Not Provided for by Regulations or Forming Part of Instruction Fees
Items in a bill of costs that are not provided for under the regulations or that form part of instruction fees must be taxed off. Items provided for under preparation of respective documents to which they relate must also be taxed off to avoid duplication.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Transport Costs — Consistency in Awards
Where a taxing officer has established a standard for transport costs in earlier items of the same bill without objection, a subsequent tripling of those costs for the same journey with all other factors remaining constant is manifestly excessive and must be revised to maintain consistency.
Statutory Interpretation — Constitutional Interpretation — Administration of Justice Without Undue Regard to Technicalities
Under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, courts are enjoined to administer justice without undue regard to technicalities. An application should not be struck out on a technicality where the order sought, though inelegantly worded, clearly indicates the relief desired and is not ambiguous.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Hussan Bukenya v Dr. Richard Ssembatya (Taxation Appeal No. 7 of 2019)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol [1999] 2 EA 45
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (1982) HCB 11
  • Kabugo Juliet v Uganda National Roads Authority (HCMA No. 43 of 2020)
  • Kwacha Communications Limited & Another v Pindoria Holdings Ltd & Another (CA No. 033 of 2022)
  • Hajji Sulaiman Kizito v Kampala Financial Services Limited & Others (HCCS No. 30 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Zonobia v Lubega & 4 Others (Taxation Reference 123 of 2021) [2023] UGHC 412 (8 July 2023)
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.