Share
James Matsiko v Davis Nelyonrugabe (civil Application no. 48/2001) [2003] UGCA 36 (4 June 2003)
- Citation
- [2003] UGCA 36
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Mukasa-Kikonyogo, DCJ, Okello, JA, Kitumba, JA
- Case number
- civil Application no. 48/2001
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Mukasa-Kikonyogo, DCJ, Okello, JA, Kitumba, JA
- Case number
- civil Application no. 48/2001
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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Court found that the instruction fee claimed by the respondent was manifestly excessive given the non-complexity of the withdrawn application and the lack of justification for basing the fee on the value of the residential property.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.
- Items 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, and 19 are disallowed.
- All disbursements are allowed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Uganda Electricity Board
Applicant Counsel: Mr. WamalaCharles Kabagambe
Respondent Counsel: Mr. NdyomugabeAmounts and remedies
- Instruction Fee Allowed: UGX 2,000,000
- Total Bill of Costs Allowed: UGX 2,038,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Taxation of Bill of Costs After Withdrawal of Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the instruction fee claimed by the respondent is reasonable in light of the withdrawn application.
- 02
Whether additional items in the bill of costs are allowable under the rules of the Court of Appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the applicant urged the Court to award an instruction fee of Shs.300,000, arguing that the application was not complex and the claimed fee was excessive.
- Respondent
- Counsel for the respondent left the taxation of the bill to the discretion of the Court but implied entitlement to more than nominal fees due to preparation for the hearing.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court of Appeal rules and practice
Instruction fees should reflect the complexity and value of the work done, not the value of the subject matter unless justified.
- 02
Rules of the Court of Appeal of Uganda
Items not allowable under the rules, such as charges for copies of documents, must be disallowed in taxation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- Preparation time by respondent's counsel was not premature and entitled to more than nominal fees.
- The application was not complex and did not warrant a high instruction fee.
Court disposition
bill of costs taxed and allowed in part
- The respondent's bill of costs is taxed and allowed at Shs.2,038,000 only.
- Instruction fee allowed at Shs.2,000,000.
- Items 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, and 19 are disallowed.
- All disbursements are allowed.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2001 (Rising from Misc. App. No. 928 of 1999)
CORAM: HON. LADY JUSTICE L. E. M. MUKASA-KIKONYOGO, DCJ. HON. MR. JUSTICE G. M. OKELLO, JA. HON. LADY JUSTICE C. N. B. KITUMBA, JA.
UGANDA ELECTRICITY BOARD....................................
VERSUS
CHARLES KABAGAMBE....................................
RULING
$20$
$10$
The respondent acting through M/s James Matsiko, Davis Ndyomugabe & Co. Advocates filed the present bill of costs. It is in a total sum of Shs.33,717,000/= of which Shs.32,508,200/= was claimed as instruction fee.
Counsel for the respondent Mr. Ndyomugabe left the taxation of the bill to the discretion of the Court. For his part, counsel for the applicant Mr. Wamala urged this Court to award an instruction fee of Shs.300,000/ $=$ .
$3()$
The bill of costs arises from the withdrawal of an application in which the applicant sought the leave of this Court to appeal from a ruling of the High Court. Leave had been refused by the High Court.
The applicant had been condemned in costs because it had not given prior notice of its intention to withdraw the application.
I have examined the Court record; I have not found any affidavit in reply or list of authorities from the respondent. But I believe respondent's counsel had done some preparation ahead of the hearing of the application and the time for preparation was not premature. He is therefore entitled to more than nominal fees. However, the application was not a complex one and the subject matter could not have been the stated value of the residential property at Kololo.
I find the sum of Shs.32,508,200/= claimed as instruction fee manifestly excessive. If the application had proceeded on its merits it is doubtful that it would have attracted an instruction fee of more than Shs.3,000,000/ $=$ .
In the circumstances, I deem a sum of Shs.2,000,000/ $=$ reasonable instruction fee.
$20$
$10$
The instruction fee covers attendances before Court, perusals and other work preparatory to the presentation of a party's case. Items charging copies of documents are also not allowable under the rules of this Court. Accordingly items 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, and 19 are disallowed. All the disbursements are allowed.
In the result the respondent's bill of costs is taxed and allowed at Shs.2,038,000/= (Two million and thirty eight thousand Shs.) only.
$\mathcal{L}$
Dated at Kampala this 4<sup>th</sup> day of June, 2003.
$\alpha$ J. B. Sseggirinya Assistant Registrar, Court of Appeal.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.