Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:28 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

1 Jan 1946

Civil Procedure [1946] EACA 78

Kara v Karmali

Kara v Karmali (Civil Case No. 167 of 1945) [1946] EACA 78 (1 January 1946)

Court: East African Court of Appeal
Case number: Civil Case No. 167 of 1945
Judge: De Lestang, Ag. J

The court found that the Registrar's finding that the work involved was considerable was unreasonable, given the straightforward nature of the suit, which involved only factual disputes and no legal complexities. The allowance of a large sum for instructions to defend in such a simple case indicated that the taxing officer must have acted on a wrong principle. The proper approach was to remit the bill of costs to the Registrar with directions to retax the disputed item on the basis that the case did not involve considerable work. Judicial intervention was justified because the taxing officer'…

Source excerpt

Taxation Of Costs
Judicial Discretion
Costs Awards
Appeals Against Taxation

Read case analysis

Date unavailable

Civil Procedure [2016] UGHCLD 1

matovu v Babirye (Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2014)

matovu v Babirye (Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2014) [2016] UGHCLD 1 (26 June 2016)

Court: HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number: Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2014
Judge: Kwesiga, J

The court found that the Taxing Officer exercised her discretion properly in awarding Shs. 50,000,000/= as instruction fees, considering relevant factors such as the location and value of the suit property, the amount of work involved, and the general conduct of the case. The court held that there was no evidence of manifest excessiveness or application of wrong principles, and therefore, there was no justification to interfere with the Taxing Officer's award. The appeal was dismissed with costs.