[2018] UGHCCD 35
The court found that the applicant failed to present any reasonable ground or documentary evidence to justify the Assistant Registrar stepping down from the matter. The allegations of bias were deemed unfounded and viewed as a tactic to delay the proceedings. The court confirmed its jurisdiction and proceeded to tax...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] UGHCCD 35
- Parties
- Applicant: M. K. Financiers Limited; Respondent: N. Shah & Co. Ltd; Respondent: Parikh Hetai; Respondent: Owere Franco; Respondent: Obiro Isaac Ekirapa; Respondent: Johal Muhaise Bikalemesa
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- TAXATION APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Taxation Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- bill_of_costs_taxed_and_allowed
- Judges
- Kabagye, Ag. Ass. Registrar
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Bill of Costs, Advocate Remuneration, Court Jurisdiction
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
M. K. Financiers Limited
Applicant
N. Shah & Co. Ltd
Respondent
Parikh Hetai
Respondent
Owere Franco
Respondent
Obiro Isaac Ekirapa
Respondent
Johal Muhaise Bikalemesa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Taxation Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Assistant Registrar should step down from handling the taxation application due to alleged bias and pending complaint.
- 2 Whether the applicant's objections to the taxation process are genuine or constitute delaying tactics.
- 3 Whether the bill of costs submitted by the respondents should be taxed and allowed as drawn.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to present any reasonable ground or documentary evidence to justify the Assistant Registrar stepping down from the matter. The allegations of bias were deemed unfounded and viewed as a tactic to delay the proceedings. The court confirmed its jurisdiction and proceeded to tax the respondents' bill of costs strictly in accordance with the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, Schedule Six. After reviewing each item, the court allowed those drawn to scale and taxed off amounts deemed excessive or unsupported. The total bill of costs was taxed and allowed at UGX 57,289,600. The right of appeal was explained to the parties.
Court Disposition
bill_of_costs_taxed_and_allowed
Orders
- The respondents' bill of costs is taxed and allowed at UGX 57,289,600 only.
- Amounts deemed excessive or unsupported are taxed off as specified in the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
58 paragraphs
### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
## IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
#### **[CIVIL DIVISION]**
### **TAXATION APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2017**
## **ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 382 OF 2014**
M. K. FINANCIERS LIMITED $===============$ APPLICANT
#### VERSUS
============= RESPONDENTS
- 1. N. SHAH & CO. ITD - PARIKH HETAI - OWERE FRANCO - 4. OBIRO ISAAC EKIRAPA - 5. JOHAL MUHAISE BIKALEMESA
#### **RULING**
#### **BEFORE: H/W JOY BAHINGUZA KABAGYE – AG. ASST. REGISTRAR**
This Taxation Ruling is in respect of bill of costs of the Respondents.
It was filed in this Court on $18^{th}$ August, 2017. It was officially allocated to me by the Deputy Registrar of this Court to handle.
On the 5<sup>th</sup> October, 2017, it was coming for hearing. Both Counsel consented to adjourn it to 29<sup>th</sup> November, 2017.
On 27<sup>th</sup> October, 2017, Counsel for the Applicant Mr. Male H. Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka wrote a letter addressed to this Court that he was appearing before High Court Civil Application No. 275 of 2017: Mabirizi Kiwanuka Vs Kabaka of Buganda. He requested for another date.
$\mathbf{1}$
On 21<sup>st</sup> June, 2018, it was coming for taxation. Both Counsel appeared before me.
Counsel for the Respondents Ms Ujeo Consolate was ready to proceed with taxation. However, Mr. Mabirizi for the Applicant submitted before me that I should step down from handling this matter as he was not expecting fair hearing from my Court. He further argued that if I continue to handle this Application it would be contrary to Article $28(1)$ and $44(c)$ of the Constitution. That the reason why I should step down is because he had previously complained about me and the matter is pending before Judicial Service Commission.
In her reply Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Applicant has been complaining about Judicial Officers for purposes of delaying this taxation of Respondents' bill of costs. That the said taxation has been in Court since 2014. She prayed that this Court be pleased to ignore the Applicant's allegations against Judicial Officers and proceed with the taxing of the Respondent's bill of costs.
Having listened to submissions by Counsel for Applicant and the Reply by Counsel for the Respondents, I totally agree with Counsel for the Respondents that the allegations by Mr. Mabirizi that this Court should not proceed with the hearing of this matter and that there is no fair justice for him in this Court are not genuine. The Applicant is merely deploying delaying tactics for this matter not be disposed off.
The Applicant has not presented any reasonable ground before this Court as to why I should step down from handling this taxation. This matter has
been pending before this Court and the Applicant had never presented any documentary evidence that I have no jurisdiction to entertain Applications in this Court. I have been handling high profile Applications in this Division than this one I am handling now and nobody has ever complained about my jurisdiction.
In the premises I will proceed to handle this Application judiciously and strictly in accordance with the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations under Schedule Six (6). Any party who is not satisfied with the Ruling has right to appeal against my decision.
Item $1 -$ Which is instruction fees, I have found the figure of **16,469,600/=** was strictly drawn to the scale. So it is allowed as it is.
Item 2 – The amount for perusal is quite high as a result $200,000/$ = is taxed off.
Item $3 -$ Is allowed as it is.
Item 4 – On making copies is quite high $200,000/$ = is taxed off.
Item $5 - 8$ which relates to Clerk's attendance of Court are drawn to the scale. So are allowed.
Item 9 – **One million (1,000,000/=)** is taxed off.
Item 10 – Perusals $85,000/$ = is taxed off.
Item $11 -$ Is allowed as it is.
Item $12 - 80,000/$ = is taxed off.
$\overline{2}$
- Item $13 -$ Is allowed. - Item 14 On making copies $80,000/$ = is taxed off. - Item $15 -$ Is allowed. - Item $16 80,000/$ = is taxed off.
Items 17, 18. 19, 20, 21 and 22 relates to Clerk attendances are allowed as they are.
- Item 23 Extracting an Interim Order $30,000/$ = is taxed off. - Items 24 and 25 allowed as they are. - Item 26 $1,000,000/$ = is taxed off. - Item $27 50,000/$ = is taxed off. - Item 28 Draft 2 Affidavits is allowed at $35,000/$ =. - Item 29 Making copies $80,000/$ = is taxed off. - Item $30 -$ Is allowed. - Item 31 Making copies $120,000/$ = is taxed off. - Item 32 Making Affidavit is allowed. - Items 34, 35 and 36 Clerk's attendances are allowed. - Item 37 Perusing the Affidavits $50,000/$ = is taxed off. - Item 38 Perusals $20,000/$ = is taxed off. - Item 39 Perusals $150,000/$ = is taxed off.
$\boldsymbol{\Lambda}$
Item 40 – Instruction fees allowed as it is.
- Item $41 -$ Allowed as it is. - Item 42 Making copies $120,000/$ = taxed off. - Items 43, 44, 45 Clerk allowances allowed as they are.
Item 46 - Instruction fees in Misc. Application No. 3 of 2015, **6,000,000/=** taxed off.
- Item 47 Perusing $30,000/$ = is taxed off. - Item $48 -$ Drafting Affidavits allowed as it is. - Item 49 Making copies, $80,000/$ = taxed off. - Item 50 Drafting Affidavit allowed. - Item 51 Making copies $80,000/$ = taxed off.
Items 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 allowed as they are including Clerk attendances.
Item 57 – Instruction fees $6,000.000/=(Six million)$ taxed off.
- Item 58 Perusing Notice of Motion $50,000/$ = taxed off. - Items $59 60$ Allowed as they are. - Item 61 Making copies $40,000/$ = taxed off. - Item 62 Drafting an Affidavit allowed.
Item 63 – Making copies $40,000/$ = taxed off.
- Item 64 Drafting Affidavit **20,000/** = taxed off. - Item 65 Making copies $40,000/$ = taxed off. - Item 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70 Clerk's attendances allowed. - Item 71 Perusing a letter $50,000/$ = taxed off. - Items 72, 73 and 74 $-$ Allowed. - Item 75 **50,000/** = taxed off. - Item 76 Extracting an Order allowed. - Item 77 Making copies **15,000/=** taxed off. - Items 78 and 79 allowed as they are. - Item 80 Perusals $140,000/$ = taxed off. - Item 81 Drafting Affidavit allowed as it is. - Item 82 Making copies taxed off $60,000/=$ . - Items 83, 84 and 85 Allowed as they are Clerk's attendances. - Item 86 Perusals of Affidavits $15,000/$ = taxed off. - Items 87, 88, 89 and 90 $-$ Advocate attendances allowed as they are. - Item 91 Instructions fees $3,500,000/$ = taxed off. - Item 92 Drafting Notice of Motion allowed as it is. - Item 93 Making copies $150,000/$ = taxed off.
Items 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 and 100 - Clerk's and Advocate's attendances allowed as they are.
Items 102, 103 and 104 – Clerk's attendance allowed.
- Item 105 Perusing submissions $300,000/$ = taxed off. - Item 106 Drafting submissions $45,000/$ = taxed off. - Item 107 Making copies $300,000/$ = taxed off. - Items 108, 109, 110 Clerk's attendance allowed. - Item $111 -$ Making copies **60,000/=** taxed off. - Items 112, 113, 114 and 115 allowed.
**SERVICE**
- Item 116 Advocate's attendance $100,000/$ = taxed off. - Item 117 Perusals $35,000/$ = taxed off. - Item $118 -$ Drafting submissions **250,000/=** taxed off. - Item 119 and $120 -$ Allowed as they are. - Item 121 Advocate's attendance $30,000/$ = taxed off. - Item 122 Drafting bill of costs $50,000/$ = taxed off. - Item 123 Making copies $640,000/$ = taxed off. - Items 124 and 125 allowed as they are. - VAT Taxed off. No receipts attached. - Items $126 200$ All allowed as they are.
$\mathbf{c}_{\mathbf{L}}$
all the bill of costs in All has been taxed and allowed at Shs.57,289,600/= only (Fifty seven million two hundred and eighty nine six hundred shillings only).
Right of appeal explained.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Joy Bahinguza Kabagye
# **AG. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR**
13/7/2018
Scanned by CamScanner