Uganda Case Law

Attorney General v Akello & 8 Others

Attorney General v Akello & 8 Others (Miscellaneous Application 38 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 10 (17 January 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 38 of 2024

Judge

Okello, J

The High Court found that the taxing officer erred in law and principle by awarding an instruction fee of shs. 45,000,000,000 based on an inflated number of claimants derived from PE1, rather than the representative order, and without affording the parties a fair hearing. The officer failed to apply the mandatory sliding scale under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations and instead used an arbitrary percentage, resulting in a manifestly excessive award. The court held that instruction fee in representative suits must be confined to the award due to the named plaintiff…

Source excerpt

• Taxation Of Costs
• Instruction Fee Assessment
• Representative Suits
• Fair Hearing
• Abuse Of Court Process
• Res Judicata

Uganda Taxi Operators & Drivers Association v Uganda Revenue Authority (Taxation Civil Reference 25 of 2017)

Uganda Taxi Operators & Drivers Association v Uganda Revenue Authority (Taxation Civil Reference 25 of 2017) [2020] UGSC 13 (10 June 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Taxation Civil Reference 25 of 2017

Judge

Mugamba, JSC

The Supreme Court partly allowed a taxation reference and increased the instruction fee from Shs. 50 million to Shs. 100 million, holding the appeal concerned VAT interpretation, not the value of the refund.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Instruction Fee Assessment
• Value Added Tax
• Court Discretion In Costs
• Consistency In Awards
• Taxation-of-costs

Mugenyi v Hoima District Administration (Taxation Appeal No. 35 of 2017)

Mugenyi v Hoima District Administration (Taxation Appeal No. 35 of 2017) [2019] UGCommC 226 (1 March 2019)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Taxation Appeal No. 35 of 2017

Judge

Wabwire, J

The High Court upheld a UGX 90,000,000 instruction fee in a taxation appeal, finding no error of principle and dismissing the appeal with costs.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Instruction Fee Assessment
• Judicial Discretion In Taxation
• Consent Decree Effect
• Principle Of Consistency
• Taxation-of-costs

Mbale Resort Hotel (U) Limited v Babcon (U) Limited (Taxation Civil Reference 18 of 2018)

Mbale Resort Hotel (U) Limited v Babcon (U) Limited (Taxation Civil Reference 18 of 2018) [2018] UGSC 60 (20 September 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Taxation Civil Reference 18 of 2018

Judge

Mwangusya, JSC

The Supreme Court of Uganda increased taxed instruction fees from UGX 3 million to UGX 16 million and allowed VAT after finding a VAT certificate on record.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Instruction Fee Assessment
• Vat On Legal Costs
• Arbitration Award Challenge
• Taxation-of-costs
• Instruction-fee-assessment

Sebalu v Secretary General of East African Community and Another (Taxation Cause No.1 of 2011)

Sebalu v Secretary General of East African Community and Another (Taxation Cause No.1 of 2011) [2012] EACJ 24 (20 January 2012)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Taxation Cause No.1 of 2011

The EACJ taxed the applicant’s bill of costs, reducing a USD 10 million instruction fee to USD 65,000 and awarding disbursements only where receipts were produced.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Instruction Fee Assessment
• Getting Up Fee
• Evidence Of Disbursements
• Vat On Legal Fees
• Taxation-of-costs

Sebalu v Secretary General of East African Community and Another

Sebalu v Secretary General of East African Community and Another (Reference 1 of 2011) [2012] EACJ 1 (20 January 2012)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Reference 1 of 2011

The East African Court of Justice taxed down an excessive bill of costs, allowing a reasonable instruction fee, getting up fee, VAT, and proved expenses.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Instruction Fee Assessment
• Getting Up Fee
• Disbursement Proof
• Vat On Legal Fees
• Taxation-of-costs

Nyong'o and Others v A.G. of Kenya and Others (Taxation 5 of 2008)

Nyong'o and Others v A.G. of Kenya and Others (Taxation 5 of 2008) [2008] EACJ 3 (19 December 2008)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Taxation 5 of 2008

The EACJ taxed a bill of costs from a landmark reference, reducing unsupported claims and fixing the total at USD 2,033,164.99 after exercising taxation discretion.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Instruction Fee Assessment
• Party And Party Costs
• Documentary Evidence In Costs
• Court Discretion In Taxation
• Taxation-of-costs

Kiwanuka v Chand & Another

Kiwanuka v Chand & Another (Civil Application 106 of 2003; Civil Application 107 of 2003) [2003] UGCA 13 (10 December 2003)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Application 106 of 2003 ; Civil Application 107 of 2003

Judge

Byamugisha, JA

The Court of Appeal reduced an instruction fee award, disallowed claimed interest on a loan as a recoverable cost, and allowed bank guarantee charges.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Instruction Fee Assessment
• Bank Guarantee Charges
• Interest On Loans
• Taxation-of-costs
• Instruction-fees

James Matsiko v Davis Nelyonrugabe

James Matsiko v Davis Nelyonrugabe (civil Application no. 48/2001) [2003] UGCA 36 (4 June 2003)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

civil Application no. 48/2001

Judge

Mukasa-Kikonyogo, DCJ, Okello, JA, Kitumba, JA

The Court of Appeal taxed a withdrawn application’s bill of costs, reducing an excessive instruction fee to Shs.2,000,000 and disallowing several items.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Instruction Fee Assessment
• Withdrawal Of Application
• Taxation-of-costs
• Instruction-fee
• Civil-procedure

Attorney General v Ssemwogerere and Another

Attorney General v Ssemwogerere and Another (Civil Application 20 of 2000) [2001] UGSC 22 (2 February 2001)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Application 20 of 2000

Judge

J.W.N.Tsekooko, JSC

The taxing officer erred in principle by basing the instruction fee award on speculative and extraneous factors such as the purported pricelessness of constitutional rights, international respectability, and separation of powers, rather than on the reasonable guidelines set out in Rule 9(2) of the Third Schedule. The subject matter of the appeal did not have a quantifiable monetary value, and the appeal itself was interlocutory, brief, and not exceptionally complex. The award of Shs.350,000,000/= was manifestly excessive and inconsistent with previous awards in similar cases. The court held t…

Source excerpt

• Taxation Of Costs
• Instruction Fee Assessment
• Constitutional Petition Costs
• Principles Of Cost Award
• Access To Justice
• Judicial Discretion