[1946] EACA 76
The court found that the Taxing Officer acted on a wrong principle by allowing a disproportionately large sum for instructions to appeal in a case that was simple and involved a modest monetary claim. The court emphasized that judicial discretion in taxation of costs must be exercised with due regard to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1946] EACA 76
- Parties
- Appellant: G. P. Zala and P. P. Zala (Zala Brothers); Respondent: Jiwan Singh, Uttam Singh, Arjan Singh and Balwant Singh (Nyanza Engineering Works)
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1944
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Taxation of Costs
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Judges
- Bourke J
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Quantum of Costs, Instructions Fee, Judicial Discretion, Appeal Procedure
- 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
G. P. Zala and P. P. Zala (Zala Brothers)
Appellant
Jiwan Singh, Uttam Singh, Arjan Singh and Balwant Singh (Nyanza Engineering Works)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Taxation of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Taxing Officer applied the correct principle in allowing a large sum for instructions to appeal in a simple case.
- 2 Whether the sum allowed for instructions was extravagant given the simplicity and value of the underlying claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Taxing Officer acted on a wrong principle by allowing a disproportionately large sum for instructions to appeal in a case that was simple and involved a modest monetary claim. The court emphasized that judicial discretion in taxation of costs must be exercised with due regard to the complexity and value of the matter, and that describing the proceedings as of 'great complexity' was erroneous. The sum allowed was extravagant and not justified by the circumstances, thus warranting appellate intervention and a direction for re-taxation in accordance with proper principles.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- The bill of costs is remitted to the Taxing Officer for re-taxation of the disputed item in accordance with the principles set forth in the first schedule to the Rules of Court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
## APPELLATE CIVIL
## Before BOURKE, J.
G. P. ZALA and P. P. ZALA (carrying on business under the firm name or style of Zala Brothers), Appellants (Original Defendants) $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{M})\subset \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{M})$
JIWAN SINGH, UTTAM SINGH, ARJAN SINGH and BALWANT SINGH (carrying on business under the firm name or style of Nyanza Engineering Works), Respondents (Original Plaintiffs)
## Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1944
Bill of costs—Large sum claimed for "instructions"—Simple case—Taxation— Large sum allowed—Appeal against taxation—Wrong principle applied.
The plaintiffs obtained judgment in default of appearance against the defendants for Sh. 700. On appeal the judgment was reversed. Whereupon the defendants' Advocate submitted a bill of costs claiming, inter alia, for "instructions to appeal" Sh. 2,500. On taxation the amount was reduced to Sh. 1,700. The plaintiffs appealed on the ground that the figure allowed by the taxing officer was extravagant.
Held (7-10-46).—That in allowing such a large sum for such a simple case the taxing officer must have acted upon a wrong principle.
Appeal allowed and bill of costs remitted to taxing officer for re-taxing.
Cases referred to: Shivji Karson Patel v. Shivji Jetha and another 21 K. L. R. 27; Abdallah bin Ali v. Mohamed bin Ahmed (Civil Appeal No. 20/43 unreported); Hasham Kara v. Abdul Mohamed Hussein Karmali (Civil Case No. 167/45 reported in this volume at $p.$ 1).
Nazareth for the Appellants.
Khanna for the Respondents.
ORDER.—This matter comes before me under Rule 7 of the Rules of Court upon an objection to the *quantum* allowed by the Taxing Officer in respect of the item "Instructions to appeal" in a bill of costs. It is said that the Taxing Officer fixed an altogether extravagant figure, misapprehended the principles involved, and exercised his discretion unjudicially and without regard to the facts and circumstances he was bound to take into consideration under the relevant part of the first schedule to the Rules.
The proceedings in question were an appeal from a judgment in default of appearance given by the Magistrate's Court at Kisumu. The amount involved in the substantive action—a simple claim on the face of it—is Sh. 700. I happened to determine the appeal and the case as a result was restored to the list of the Lower Court for trial. The questions raised on the appeal were on points of procedure with a view to settling whether the Magistrate was entitled to give the decree he did. I am surprised to find it stated in the bill of costs in the item under review that the appeal was of "great complexity"; it was nothing of the sort. For the instructions to appeal the sum claimed was Sh. 2,500 and this was cut to Sh. 1,700 by the Taxing Officer. The total amount passed on the bill of costs was Sh. 2,188, more than three times the amount put in claim by the suit lodged in the Magistrate's Court, and the disputed item for "Instructions" is nearly two and a half times that amount. A Judge is naturally very slow to interfere in a matter of this kind and it is not necessary for me to repeat what has already
been fully expounded in C. A. No. 8 of 1942 (1944) 21 K. L. R. 27; C. A. No. 20 of 1943 (apparently unreported); and C. C. 167 of 1945\* (unreported) in which the learned Judge after directing himself as to the proper approach to the question where the quantum was in issue concluded that "The amount claimed in this case for 'instructions' seems to me to be extravagant and in allowing such a large sum the Registrar must have acted on a wrong principle". In that case the instructions were in connexion with preparation of a defence to a claim for Sh. 1,840 and Sh. 1,200 was the sum submitted for taxation of which Sh. 1,000 were allowed and reviewed on objection.
The matter should never have been put forward before the Taxing Officer as being one of "great complexity" as, judging by his notes upon the record, it evidently was. If £85 is to be regarded as a fair and usual figure in a case of this kind I can only express my astonishment. To my mind this is plainly one of those exceptional cases in which the Court or Judge is justified in concluding that in arriving at such a large sum the Taxing Officer must have acted upon a wrong principle. I cannot believe that sufficient regard was paid to the requirements set forth in the relevant proviso to be found in the first schedule. I remit the bill of costs back to the Taxing Officer with a direction to re-tax the disputed. item giving careful attention to the principles enunciated in the said proviso and taking cognizance of the fact that it is erroneous to describe the proceedings on appeal, interesting though they were on a technical point of procedure, as being of "great complexity".
The appeal is allowed.
Reported in this volume at page 1.