Uganda Case Law

Okumu & * Otjers v Uganda Electricirty Transmission Company Limited (TAXATION APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2019)

Okumu & * Otjers v Uganda Electricirty Transmission Company Limited (TAXATION APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 108 (15 May 2020)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

TAXATION APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2019

Judge

Bashaija, J

The High Court upheld a taxation award of UGX 1.424 billion, finding the taxing master properly assessed instruction fees and did not act on wrong principle.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Instruction Fees
• Party To Party Costs
• Advocates Remuneration
• Court Discretion In Costs
• Taxation-of-costs

Bank of Africa Uganda Ltd v Kayonza Distributors Ltd & 2 Ors

Bank of Africa Uganda Ltd v Kayonza Distributors Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2013) [2017] UGCommC 131 (24 July 2017)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2013

The court found that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the alleged absence of evidence for the taxed costs, as the appellant did not produce any evidence in opposition. The Registrar correctly applied Regulation 37 by taxing the bill of costs under the 6th schedule, as the proceedings were contentious. The separation of bills for respondents represented by the same advocate was within the discretion of the taxing officer under Regulation 42, and there was no sufficient basis to set aside the taxed costs. Consequently, all grounds of appeal failed and the appeal w…

Source excerpt

• Taxation Of Costs
• Party To Party Costs
• Advocates Remuneration
• Burden Of Proof
• Contentious Vs Non Contentious
• Separate Bills Of Costs

Byamugisha t/a J.B. Byamugisha Advocates v National Social Security Fund

Byamugisha t/a J.B. Byamugisha Advocates v National Social Security Fund (Civil Reference No.I9 of 2012) [2013] UGCA 2056 (13 February 2013)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Reference No.I9 of 2012

Judge

Kasule, JA

The Court of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to tax advocate/client bills of costs; such jurisdiction is expressly vested in the High Court by section 80 of the Advocates Act and Rule 109(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The distinction between party-to-party and advocate/client bills of costs is justified by their differing nature and scope, with advocate/client bills often including items unrelated to court proceedings. The statutory scheme does not violate constitutional rights to equality, fair hearing, or adequate compensation, as the law provides mechanisms for advocates to seek addit…

Source excerpt

• Taxation Of Costs
• Advocate Client Bill
• Jurisdiction Of Court Of Appeal
• Constitutional Rights In Taxation
• Party To Party Costs

Uganda Development Bank v Oil Seeds Uganda Limited (Misc. Appl. No. 610 of 1997)

Uganda Development Bank v Oil Seeds Uganda Limited (Misc. Appl. No. 610 of 1997) [1999] UGHC 62 (16 June 1999)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Misc. Appl. No. 610 of 1997

Judges

Ntabgoba, PJ

Appeal against taxation of costs dismissed; the High Court upheld instruction fees based on a determinable subject matter and awarded costs to the respondent.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Instruction Fees
• Arbitration Award Challenge
• Advocate Remuneration
• Party To Party Costs
• Taxation-of-costs