[2003] UGCA 36

[2003] UGCA 36

The Court found that the instruction fee claimed by the respondent was manifestly excessive given the non-complexity of the withdrawn application and the lack of justification for basing the fee on the value of the residential property. The Court determined that a reasonable instruction fee should be Shs.2,000,000, reflecting the actual work done and preparation by counsel. Items in the bill of costs not allowable under the rules, such as charges for copies of documents, were disallowed. All disbursements were allowed. The respondent's bill of costs was taxed and allowed at Shs.2,038,000 only.

Citation
[2003] UGCA 36
Parties
Applicant: Uganda Electricity Board; Respondent: Charles Kabagambe
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
4 June 2003
Case Number
civil Application no. 48/2001
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Taxation of Bill of Costs After Withdrawal of Application
Outcome
bill of costs taxed and allowed in part
Judges
Mukasa-Kikonyogo, DCJ, Okello, JA, Kitumba, JA
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Instruction Fee Assessment, Withdrawal of Application
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Instruction Fee Assessment Withdrawal of Application

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uganda Electricity Board

Applicant

Charles Kabagambe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Taxation of Bill of Costs After Withdrawal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the instruction fee claimed by the respondent is reasonable in light of the withdrawn application.
  2. 2 Whether additional items in the bill of costs are allowable under the rules of the Court of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the instruction fee claimed by the respondent was manifestly excessive given the non-complexity of the withdrawn application and the lack of justification for basing the fee on the value of the residential property. The Court determined that a reasonable instruction fee should be Shs.2,000,000, reflecting the actual work done and preparation by counsel. Items in the bill of costs not allowable under the rules, such as charges for copies of documents, were disallowed. All disbursements were allowed. The respondent's bill of costs was taxed and allowed at Shs.2,038,000 only.

Court Disposition

bill of costs taxed and allowed in part

Orders

  • The respondent's bill of costs is taxed and allowed at Shs.2,038,000 only.
  • Instruction fee allowed at Shs.2,000,000.