Dibagh Singh And Bros Limited v M/S Sekabanja & Co. Advocates (Taxation Reference 9 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 179 (26 June 2024)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Taxation Reference 9 of 2023
Judge
Bernard Namanya, J
The High Court set aside a taxation ruling that allowed an advocate-client bill of costs of UGX 1.175 billion, finding the award manifestly excessive and unsupported by reasons.
H and G Advocates (Foemerly Kateera and Kagumire Advocates) v International Aids Vaccine Initiatives and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Taxation Appeal No. 5 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 122 (22 August 2022)
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number
Miscellaneous Taxation Appeal No. 5 of 2021
Judge
Musa Ssekaana, J
The court held that the value of the subject matter for taxation purposes should be determined from the amounts claimed in the petition, specifically the general and punitive damages, even if not awarded by the court. The taxing master correctly applied the relevant regulations but erred by not including the punitive and exemplary damages in the calculation and by failing to apportion costs among all respondents represented. The award of costs by the taxing master is upheld, but the liability should be shared equally among all respondents represented by the advocate. VAT is to be applied to i…
Byamugisha t/a J.B. Byamugisha Advocates v National Social Security Fund (Civil Reference No.I9 of 2012) [2013] UGCA 2056 (13 February 2013)
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number
Civil Reference No.I9 of 2012
Judge
Kasule, JA
The Court of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to tax advocate/client bills of costs; such jurisdiction is expressly vested in the High Court by section 80 of the Advocates Act and Rule 109(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The distinction between party-to-party and advocate/client bills of costs is justified by their differing nature and scope, with advocate/client bills often including items unrelated to court proceedings. The statutory scheme does not violate constitutional rights to equality, fair hearing, or adequate compensation, as the law provides mechanisms for advocates to seek addit…
Aya Investments (U) Ltd v M/s Kibeedi & Co. Advocates (Misc. Application No. 491 of 2008) [2008] UGHC 26 (26 November 2008)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Misc. Application No. 491 of 2008
The court found that the proceedings had deviated from the main application for leave to appeal out of time and were instead investigating allegations of fraud and forgery that had not been properly pleaded. This constituted a procedural irregularity. The court held that the justice of the case required discontinuing the current proceedings and setting aside all impugned orders, remitting the file to the Deputy Registrar for proper taxation of the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs inter partes. The court emphasized that any investigation into fraud should only occur if properly pleaded and suppor…
