Uganda Case Law

Amudo v Secretary General of the East African Community (Taxation Reference 3 of 2016)

Amudo v Secretary General of the East African Community (Taxation Reference 3 of 2016) [2017] EACJ 115 (4 July 2017) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Taxation Reference 3 of 2016

Judge

Jundu JA, Mugenyi JA, Ngiye JA

The Court partly allowed a taxation reference, striking out costs for perusals, drawing, filing and service charged to a public officer, but upholding other taxation items.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Public Officer Costs
• Costs Award Principles
• Taxation-of-costs
• Public-officer-costs
• Eacj-procedure

Amudo v Secretary General East African Community (Taxation Reference No.3 of 2016)

Amudo v Secretary General East African Community (Taxation Reference No.3 of 2016) [2017] EACJ 123 (4 July 2017) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Taxation Reference No.3 of 2016

Judge

Jundu J, Mugenyi PJ, Ngiye J

The Court found that the Taxing Officer erred in awarding costs for perusals, drawing, filing documents in Court, and service to the Secretary General, as these are not expenses actually incurred by public officers who earn a salary for their duties. Such costs are only compensable where actual expenditure is proven. The Court struck out the defective Affidavit in Reply for non-compliance with procedural requirements. On the issue of costs for Application No. 15 of 2012, the Court held that these were properly included as the application arose from the main claim and the order for costs cover…

Source excerpt

• Taxation Of Costs
• Public Officer Costs
• Affidavit Requirements

Inspector General of Government v Magezi (Taxation Reference 1 of 2016)

Inspector General of Government v Magezi (Taxation Reference 1 of 2016) [2017] EACJ 40 (27 March 2017) (First Instance Division)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Taxation Reference 1 of 2016

Judge

Lenaola JA

The court held that the Attorney General of Uganda, as a public officer whose functions are governed by a distinct legal regime and who is compensated by salary from the consolidated fund, is not entitled to instruction fees or related costs when representing government entities in court. The analogy to in-house counsel in private practice is inapplicable due to the different legal frameworks and compensation structures. The Taxing Officer correctly exercised her discretion and applied the appropriate legal principles in denying instruction fees, perusals, drawings, and service to the Attorne…

Source excerpt

• Taxation Of Costs
• Instruction Fees
• Public Officer Costs
• Attorney General Representation