[2025] UGHCCD 86

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

#### IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

# (CIVIL DIVISION)

# TAX REFERENCE NO.0001 OF 2024

# (ARISING FROM TAXATION APPLICATION NO. 0018 OF 2024)

# (ARISING FROM HIGH COURT CIVIL SUIT NO.372 OF 2O17)

NAOMI KARUGABA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT

# VERSUS

- 1. RONNIE ROGERS AMONE - 2. OJWIYA O. NELSON ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENTS

#### BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE SIMON PETER M. KINOBE

### RULING

### BACKGROUND:

The Applicant brought this application Under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Section 62(1) of the Advocates Act, Regulation 3 of the Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeal and References) Regulations S. I 267-5,) for orders;

1. That the decision of the taxing master in Taxation Application 0018 of 2024 arising from Civil Suit No. 372 of 2017 allowing UGX 31,341,84O= (Shillings

1st July 2025

Thirty-One Million three hundred forty-one thousand eight hundred and forty) as instruction fees be set aside and substituted with a lesser amount in line with the Advocates remuneration and taxation of costs regulations.

- 2. That the respective amounts awarded by the taxing master for item I, items 103- 156 and item I0 (disbursements) in Taxation Application No. 0018 of 2024 be set aside and more appropriate amounts substituted instead in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates remuneration and taxation of costs regulations. - 3. Costs of this application be provided for.

The grounds of the application are specifically set out in the affidavit of the appellant which briefly are that;

- a) The respondent sued the applicant in Civil No 372 of 2017 wherein judgment was entered in favour of the respondents with orders that; - b) The defendant pays the plaintiff special damages of UGX 97,219,100, interest of 15 percent per annum from 6th may 2015 till payment in full, general damages of UGX 100 Million and interest thereon of 15 percent per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full, costs of the suit. - c) On the 1/7/2024 his counsel appeared before the learned Registrar/ Taxing master in Taxation Application No. 0018 of 2024 for taxation of the respondent's bill of costs. - d) The taxing master/deputy registrar of the high court of Uganda at Kampala Civil Division taxed the respondent's bill of costs at UGX 31,341,840.

1st July 2025

- e) The respondent's bill of costs allowed at UGX 31,341,840 which amount was manifestly excessive and contrary to the scale of fees stipulated under schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules as amended. - f) The taxing master added UGX 4,277,640 purportedly as interest on the overall instruction fees which was contrary to the principles of taxation. - g) The registrar taxing master did not exercise her discretion judiciously as required by the precedents and taxation principle while awarding UGX 1,170,000 as plaintiff's transport on items 103 to 156 UGX 1,000,000 and on counsel's transport under item 8(disbursements) and UGX 500,000 for photocopying, and the overall taxed costs. - h) The justice of the matter requires that the decision of the taxing officer be revised and appropriate awards be made to the respondent's bill of costs.

In opposition to the application, the 1st respondent filed an affidavit by Awoko Hilda in reply which states briefly that;

- a) The present taxation reference is full of falsehoods, is baseless, frivolous, meritless and bad in law brought to frustrate the judgment creditor from enjoying the fruits of his judgment. - b) The application reference is an abuse of court process brought under wrong court procedure and is time barred. - c) The taxation reference was brought after unreasonable delay. - d) The respondent successfully sued the applicant in Civil Suit No. 372 of 2017 where in judgment was entered in the respondent's favour and among the order were awarded costs.

1st July 2025

- e) On the first day of July 2024 in the presence of both counsel before the learned Registrar /taxing master, our bill of costs was taxed in Taxation Application No. 0018 of 2024 relying on the principles of taxation of bill of costs and the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) rules. - f) The bill of costs was properly taxed by the learned taxing master at UGX 31,341,840 after due consideration of the importance of the case and risks involved. - g) The costs awarded by the taxing master were entirely reasonable and justifiable considering the input and the expenses which were incurred in the suit from which the bill of costs was derived. - h) The learned taxing officer judiciously exercised his discretion when assessing instructions fees to a reasonable sum of UGX 18,277,640 considering the case, its complexity and work done in accordance with the established principles of taxation of bill of costs and schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) rules because the subject matter was over UGX 500 Million. - i) It was not true that the taxing officer awarded any amount contrary to the principles of taxation. - j) The taxing master has the discretion to award any amount of costs as long as it is reasonable and justifiable and the instruction fees awarded were not contrary to the principles of taxation. - k) The disbursements and expenditures claimed by the respondent were adequately proved to the satisfaction of the taxing officer and the applicant's assertions are otherwise baseless and without merit.

1st July 2025

- l) The applicants were part and parcel of the pre taxation and taxation process and as such they are estopped from purporting to raise issues against the award. - m) This taxation reference does not manifest any sufficient cause for its grant and has been made after unreasonable delay. - n) The respondent followed all legal procedures and guidelines in the submission and taxation of its bill of costs and there was no miscarriage of justice as alleged by the applicant. - o) It is in the interest of justice that the decision of the taxation officer is upheld and this taxation is dismissed with costs to the applicant.

#### REPRESENTATION

The applicant was represented by Isingoma Rugadya holding brief for Herbert Byenkya while the 1st respondent was represented by Omongole Richard.

#### ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

#### DETERMINATION

I have had the benefit of reading the application together with the affidavit and submissions and the affidavit in reply.

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 372 of 2017 at the High Court which was dismissed with costs. The respondent's advocates filed a bill of costs amounting to a total of UGX 98,054,400. At the hearing of the Taxation Application No. 0018 of 2024, the bill was taxed and allowed at UGX 31,341,840.

1st July 2025

The applicant's case as can be deduced from the affidavit is as follows;

- a) The respondent's bill of costs allowed at UGX 31,341,840 which amount was manifestly excessive and contrary to the scale of fees stipulated under schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules as amended. - b) The taxing master added UGX 4,277,640 purportedly as interest on the overall instruction fees which was contrary to the principles of taxation. - c) The registrar taxing master did not exercise her discretion judiciously as required by the precedents and taxation principle while awarding UGX 1,170,000 as plaintiff's transport on items 103 to 156 UGX 1,000,000 and on counsel's transport under item 8(disbursements) and UGX 500,000 for photocopying, and the overall taxed costs.

#### DECISION

Taxation of advocates costs is provided for by the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI 267-4.

In order to adequately consider the applicant's claim, it is necessary to evaluate each item in contention on the respondent's bill of costs.

The computation of instruction fees (item 1) is provided for in the 6th schedule of the regulations. The suit was for the recovery of UGX 200 million and the respondent indicated UGX 50 million as their instruction fees. The amount of UGX 35,722,360 was taxing off thereby allowing UGX 14,277,640. Paragraph 1(g) of the 6th schedule provides for the mode of computation of instruction fees, setting the instruction fees for a suit whose subject matter is UGX 200m at UGX 10,460,000. Item 1 of the bill of costs is thereby varied and the amount on item 1 is set aside and the instruction fees are allowed at UGX 10,460,000.

1st July 2025

Page **6** of **9**

The applicant contended that the Registrar/Taxing Master did not pay due regard to regulations and established taxation principles while awarding UGX 1,170,000/= (Shillings one million one hundred and seventy thousand) as plaintiffs' transport, counsels' transport fees on items 103-156 and UGX 1,000,000 (One million shillings) on Counsel's transport under item 8 (disbursements) and UGX 500,000 (Five hundred thousand) on photocopying under item 10 (disbursements

I will consider the items 103 to 156 which were described as transport and meals for the plaintiff.

Whereas the applicant maintains that all items in part B (items 103 to 156) of the Bill of Costs should be taxed off the argument being that the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations do not provide for costs incurred by the plaintiff, I disagree.

Regulation 13 of the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI 267-4 gives a taxing officer the discretion to the allow all such costs, charges and expenses as are authorized in the regulations and appear to him or her to have been necessary or proper for the attainment of justice or for defending the rights of any party.

It is a usual practice for particular costs incurred by the parties to be allowed and the learned Registrar exercised their discretion judiciously in allowing the amounts between UGX 30,000 -50,000 for transport and disallowing all the meals.

High Court Civil Suit No. 372 of 2017 was instituted in 2017 when fuel prices were still low and the suit was decided six years later in 2024, when the fuel prices had surged. The decision to award lower amounts in the earlier years and higher ones in

1st July 2025

the later years is fairly reasonable considering that the fuel prices have not been static.

I find that the transport costs allowed under items 103 to 156 were fair amounts and will not vary the same.

Regarding counsel's transport under item 8 Part C (disbursements). The cost presented for transport by the respondent was UGX 5,250,000 and UGX 4,200,000 was taxed off there by allowing an amount of UGX 1,050,000. The items are 21 in total covering counsel's transport and meals with counsel's fuel on each being allowed at 50,000 which is a fair amount. The allowed amount of UGX 1,050,000 is thereby maintained.

I shall now consider item 10 which is described as *"photocopying all the necessary legal documents for 20 years"* set at a cost of UGX 1,000,000 and allowed at UGX 500,000. The costs for photocopying were already catered for under part A of the bill of costs. I therefore find that allowing another lump sum amount for photocopying was unnecessary as the same had already been catered for. Accordingly, I revise the allowed bill of costs by taxing off the entire amount of UGX 500,000 allowed under item 10.

The law on revision of a taxation decisions is settled. In Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe espanol Supreme Court Civil Application 23 of 1999, it was held;

*"… save in exceptional cases, a judge does not interfere with the assessment of what the taxing officer consider to be a reasonable fee. This is because it is generally accepted that questions which are solely of quantum of costs are matters with which the taxing officer is particularly fitted to deal, and in which he has more experience than the judge. Consequently, a judge will not alter a fee allowed by the taxing*

1st July 2025

Page **8** of **9**

# *officer, merely because in his opinion he should have allowed a higher or lower amount."*

The taxing officer applied the regulations and her discretion judiciously, in assessing the amounts allowed, with the only two exceptions being the instruction fees and item 10 under disbursements.

Accordingly, the amount of instruction fees on item one is now set at UGX 10,460,000 and the amount under item 10 of disbursements is now set at zero. Therefore, the amount of UGX 31,341,840 is set aside and the bill is here by allowed at UGX 27,024,200 (Uganda Shillings twenty-seven million twenty-four thousand two hundred).

The reference partly succeeds. I will not make any order as to costs

I so order.

…………………………………………………

SIMON PETER M. KINOBE

# JUDGE

DATE: 1st July 2025