[2017] UGSC 73

[2017] UGSC 73

The Supreme Court held that instruction fees in taxation arising from an application must be determined under Rule 9(1) of the Third Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules, which requires the taxing officer to award a reasonable sum not less than one thousand shillings, without reference to the value of the subject matter. The court rejected both the respondent's claim for instruction fees based on a percentage of the subject matter and the applicant's proposed nominal fee, instead awarding 25,000,000/= as reasonable for the work involved. The court further held that VAT claimed on costs must be supported by proof of payment, and since no receipt was provided, the VAT claim was disallowed....

Citation
[2017] UGSC 73
Parties
Applicant: Uganda Revenue Authority; Respondent: Shell (U) Ltd & 9 Others
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
18 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Taxation Ruling
Outcome
bill of costs taxed and allowed in part
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Instruction Fees, Court Discretion, Vat on Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tax Law Taxation of Costs Instruction Fees Court Discretion Vat on Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uganda Revenue Authority

Applicant

Shell (U) Ltd & 9 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Taxation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether instruction fees in a taxation arising from an application should be based on the value of the subject matter.
  2. 2 Whether VAT claimed on costs must be proved by receipt to be allowed.
  3. 3 What constitutes a reasonable instruction fee for opposing an application in the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that instruction fees in taxation arising from an application must be determined under Rule 9(1) of the Third Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules, which requires the taxing officer to award a reasonable sum not less than one thousand shillings, without reference to the value of the subject matter. The court rejected both the respondent's claim for instruction fees based on a percentage of the subject matter and the applicant's proposed nominal fee, instead awarding 25,000,000/= as reasonable for the work involved. The court further held that VAT claimed on costs must be supported by proof of payment, and since no receipt was provided, the VAT claim was disallowed....

Court Disposition

bill of costs taxed and allowed in part

Orders

  • Instruction fee taxed and allowed at UgShs 25,000,000/=.
  • VAT claim of UgShs 34,782,009/= disallowed for lack of proof.