Mugenyi v Hoima District Administration (Taxation Appeal No. 35 of 2017)
Mugenyi v Hoima District Administration (Taxation Appeal No. 35 of 2017) [2019] UGTAT 1 (1 March 2019)
The court found that the taxing master exercised his discretion judiciously and properly directed himself to the law, taking into account the exceptional circumstances of the case, including its protracted duration and complexity. The taxing master applied the correct scale under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules and considered the value of the subject matter. There was no evidence that the appellant undertook work beyond what was typical for similar cases, nor was there proof of expert involvement warranting additional fees. The consent/compromise on the decree related…
Source excerpt
- Taxation Of Costs
- Instruction Fee Award
- Judicial Discretion
- Consent Decree Effect
- Principle Of Consistency