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
Mukesh Shukla Babubhai v Senyonyi (Taxation Appeal 6 of 2022) [2024] UGHCCD 191 (6 November 2024)
The High Court partly allowed a taxation appeal, finding the taxed instruction fees excessive and reducing them for an election petition and related applications.
Tolith v Dholaga (Miscellaneous Appeal 3 of 2020) [2024] UGHC 614 (8 July 2024)
The High Court set aside a trial court’s specific costs award for being made without proper taxation procedure, and granted costs in the original suit.
Buregyeya & Another v Arinatwe (Civil Appeal 36 of 2020) [2024] UGHC 163 (27 March 2024)
The court held that the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI No. 7 of 2018 do not contain any saving provisions for the application of the 1996 rules and do not apply retrospectively. The rights of the parties regarding costs must be determined by the law in force at the time the suit was instituted and judgment delivered. The hybrid approach adopted by the taxing master was not supported by law and resulted in an unjust outcome. Therefore, the bill of costs should be retaxed under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules SI No. 3 of 1996, and the prev…
Source excerpt
Acire v Okumu & Another (Civil Appeal No. 165 of 2016) [2019] UGHC 32 (29 August 2019)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against taxation of costs, holding there was no error in principle or exceptional circumstance to disturb the instruction fees awarded.
Musiitwa Vs Electoral Commission & Anor (Civil Reference No.17 of 2007) [2016] UGCA 89 (19 January 2016)
The Court of Appeal allowed a reference against a taxation ruling, finding a UGX 10 million instruction fee excessive for an interlocutory election application.
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.
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
Habre International Trading Co. Ltd v Francis Rutagarama Bantariza (Civil Application 7 of 2003) [2004] UGSC 16 (26 May 2004)
The Supreme Court of Uganda reduced a taxed instruction fee from Shs. 48,000,000 to Shs. 5,000,000, holding the taxing officer applied wrong principles.
Akisoferi Ogola v Akika Othieno and Another (Miscellaneous Application 56 of 1998) [1999] UGHC 33 (11 February 1999)
The court found that the District Registrar (Taxing Officer) correctly applied the established principles of taxation, including ensuring costs are not prohibitive, fairly reimbursing the successful party, maintaining consistency, and considering the complexity and importance of the case. The instruction fees awarded were consistent with similar cases and not manifestly excessive. The Taxing Officer properly excluded items 2-25 as covered by instruction fees and justified the amounts allowed for other items except item 70, which was improperly awarded as costs for that day had already been or…
Source excerpt
Uganda Bankers ( Employers Association) v National Union of Clerical Commercial Professionals and Technical Employees (Civil Appeal 51 of 1996) [1998] UGCA 53 (28 April 1998)
The Court of Appeal held that the taxing officer and the High Court Judge erred in applying the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules, 1996, instead of the 1982 Rules, which were in force when the order for costs was made. The liability to pay costs accrues at the time of the court's order, and the applicable rules are those in force at that time. The instruction fee awarded was manifestly excessive, given the absence of a certificate of complexity, the unknown value of the subject matter, and the brevity of the hearing. The correct approach required adherence to th…
Source excerpt
