Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Rugumba v Attorney General of Republic of Rwanda (Taxation Cause No.2 of 2012) [2013] EACJ 153 (3 May 2013) (Appellate Division)
The EACJ taxed an applicant’s bill of costs, allowing only receipt-backed disbursements and reducing an excessive instruction fee to USD 10,000 plus VAT.
Rugumba v Attorney General of Republic of Rwanda (Taxation Cause No.2 of 2012) [2013] EACJ 152 (3 May 2013) (First Instance Division)
The court held that only items supported by original receipts or properly certified copies are allowable as disbursements under the rules. Instruction fee was taxed at USD 15,000, reflecting the court's discretion and the relative simplicity of the case compared to precedent. VAT and getting up fees were added in accordance with the rules. Items not disputed were allowed as claimed, while those lacking proper documentation were taxed off. The court emphasized that costs must be reasonable and not deter access to justice, referencing prior decisions. The total taxed bill was set at USD 24,801.…
Source excerpt
A.G. of Kenya v Nyong'o and Others (Taxation Reference 2 of 2010) [2011] EACJ 4 (22 June 2011)
The EACJ taxed disputed instruction fees in a costs reference, reducing the claimed amounts and awarding the respondent party reasonable costs plus VAT.
Nyongo and Others v Attorney General of Republic of Kenya (Taxation No.2 of 2010) [2010] EACJ 7 (22 June 2010) (First Instance Division)
The East African Court of Justice taxed a costs bill arising from two applications, reducing the claimed instruction fees and allowing a total of USD 528,802.24.
Modern Holdings (EA) Limited v Kenya Ports Authority (Reference No.1 of 2009) [2010] EACJ 9 (15 January 2010) (First Instance Division)
The East African Court of Justice refused to set aside a taxing officer’s award of instruction fees, holding there was no misdirection or wrong principle.
Kenya Ports Authority v Modern Holdings Ltd (Taxation Reference 1 of 2009) [2010] EACJ 1 (15 January 2010) (First Instance Division)
The Court found that the Reference was not involving and was disposed of on a preliminary objection for want of jurisdiction, meaning the matter did not proceed to a full hearing. As such, the Taxing Officer was correct to base the instruction fee on one-eighth of the amount claimed, in line with established practice and persuasive authorities. The Court held that the Taxing Officer did not misdirect himself in law or principle, nor did he exercise his discretion injudiciously. The award was fair and reasonable, and there was no basis for the Court to interfere with the Taxing Officer's decis…
Source excerpt
Modern Holdings (EA) Limited v Kenya Ports Authority (Reference No. 1 of 2009) [2010] EACJ 6 (15 January 2010) (First Instance Division)
The Court found that the Reference was not complex and did not proceed to a full hearing, ending at the preliminary objection stage for want of jurisdiction. The Taxing Officer's decision to award 1/8 of the amount claimed as instruction fee was reasonable and consistent with established legal principles. There was no evidence of misdirection or injudicious exercise of discretion. The Court held that it should not interfere with the Taxing Officer's discretion unless it was exercised on wrong principles or considerations, which was not the case here. The application to set aside the Taxing Of…
Source excerpt
Nyongo and Others v Attorney General of Kenya and Others (Taxation Cause No.6 of 2008) [2008] EACJ 5 (19 December 2008) (Taxation Rulings)
The EACJ taxed a bill of costs arising from a major reference on Kenya’s EALA representatives, allowing most documented items but reducing the disputed instruction fee and taxing off unsupported claims.
Zachary Olum & Anor v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 1/04) [2004] UGCA 12 (29 July 2004)
The Court of Appeal partly allowed a taxation reference, increasing instruction fees and permitting additional costs in a constitutional petition against the Attorney General.
Kapeeka Coffee Works Limited v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Reference 21 of 2001) [2001] UGCA 20 (20 September 2001)
The taxing officer correctly applied the relevant principles governing taxation of instruction fees, including consideration of the nature and complexity of the appeal, the absence of a monetary value in the preliminary objection, and the need for consistency and fairness in awards. The officer's decision to treat the order striking out the plaint as interlocutory was justified, as it did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties. The applicant's arguments regarding research and responsibility were not sufficient to warrant interference with the taxed amount, as the research was not ne…
Source excerpt
