The High Court sets aside the UGX 20 million awarded as instruction fees, holding that the taxing master misclassified the suit, emphasising that costs are compensatory, not punitive.

Waboga David
Aug 1
5 min read

Introduction

In litigation, the general rule is that costs follow the event, and a successful party is entitled to the fruits of their judgment. However, such costs must remain reasonable, proportionate, and grounded in established legal principles.

In this case, the High Court found that the taxing master had awarded excessive instruction fees—UGX 20 million—in a matter that was wrongly categorized as an independent suit rather than a supplementary or ancillary application.

The Court intervened to restore proportionality, holding that while costs are compensatory, they must not be punitive, particularly where the matter was neither complex nor protracted.

BACKGROUND

In this taxation appeal, the Applicant, Amatos MwebeIha, challenged a taxation award of UGX 20 million as instruction fees and UGX 1.8 million as disbursements in Miscellaneous Cause No. 159 of 2023 — a matter that arose from a concluded civil suit (HCCS No. 382 of 2015). The Taxing Master had treated the matter as an independent cause and assessed costs accordingly. The Applicant argued the matter was not complex, had been concluded promptly, and should have been treated as an interlocutory application.

Issues

Whether the application was properly before the Court, given that the affidavit in support was sworn by an advocate in a contentious matter.
Whether the taxing master’s award in Miscellaneous Cause No. 159 of 2023 should be set aside, specifically regarding:
The UGX 20 million instruction fees;
The UGX 1.8 million disbursements; and
The total of UGX 880,000 awarded for various items, allegedly miscalculated.

Submissions by the Applicant

On the propriety of the application:

The applicant argued that the affidavit in support was validly sworn by Advocate Nyakato Arinda Adella, who was competent to do so as she participated in the taxation proceedings.

It was submitted that she did not appear in court to conduct the matter, thus no breach of Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations occurred.

On the instruction fees of UGX 20 million:

Counsel submitted that the taxing master mischaracterized Miscellaneous Cause No. 159 of 2023 as an independent suit, yet it arose from a previously concluded civil suit, rendering it a supplementary or ancillary application.

The taxing master erred in awarding fees inconsistent with Paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules, which governs interlocutory and miscellaneous applications.

The sum was excessive, punitive, and unjustified, especially where the matter was not complex and was resolved quickly.

On the disbursements of UGX 1.8 million:

The applicant submitted that no receipts or evidence were provided to justify the award, contrary to established principles that require proof before disbursements can be allowed.

Reliance was placed on Falcon Estates Ltd v. Bismillah Trading Co. Ltd SCTR No. 3 of 2023, where the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of producing receipts.

On the alleged miscalculation of UGX 880,000:

The applicant contended that the correct sum for the specified items (2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 18, and 19) should have been UGX 670,000, and that the award was inflated and amounted to unjust enrichment.

Submissions by the Respondent

On the preliminary objection:

Counsel for the respondent argued that the application was defective because it was supported by an affidavit sworn by an advocate in a contentious matter, contrary to Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations.

It was submitted that such conduct rendered the application improper and it ought to be struck out.

On the instruction fees:

The taxing master exercised discretion judiciously and correctly found that the matter was an independent suit, not an interlocutory application.

The award of UGX 20 million was fair and appropriate, considering the serious reputational implications for the respondent, whose professional integrity was being challenged.

On disbursements:

While it was true that receipts were not attached, counsel maintained that the expenses were genuinely incurred, including court fees, commissioning fees, and travel, and that strict proof was not mandatory under the applicable High Court rules.

On the UGX 880,000 award:

The respondent submitted that the award was correctly calculated by the taxing master, and the claim of error was factually incorrect and without basis.

Court’s Resolution of the Preliminary Objection

1. Whether the application was properly before Court (Preliminary Objection)

The respondent objected to the application on the basis that it was supported by an affidavit sworn by an advocate (Nyakato Arinda Adella), which they argued contravened Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations, as the matter was contentious.

The Court dismissed the objection, holding that:

Regulation 9 only bars an advocate from personally appearing in court in a matter where they are also acting as a witness.

An advocate may depose to an affidavit in a contentious matter as long as they do not appear in conduct of the matter.

In this case, Ms. Arinda did not appear; the matter was argued by a different advocate, Mr. Titus Bitekebezi.

The application was properly before the Court, and there was no breach of professional conduct regulations. The preliminary objection was overruled.

2. Whether the taxing master’s award of UGX 20 million as instruction fees should be set aside

The Court held that:

While Miscellaneous Cause No. 159 of 2023 arose from an earlier civil suit, it was neither an interlocutory application (since the main suit had concluded in 2016) nor a complex or lengthy matter.

It was properly classified as a supplementary or ancillary application, but not deserving of such high fees.

The taxing master failed to justify the UGX 20 million award, and such an amount was excessive, punitive, and unsupported by the factual or legal complexity of the matter.

Finding: The Court set aside the instruction fees of UGX 20 million and substituted them with UGX 10 million, emphasizing that: “Costs should not be punitive. The purpose of costs is to compensate, not to punish.”

3. Whether the disbursement of UGX 1.8 million was proper

The applicant relied on Falcon Estates Ltd v. Bismillah Trading Co. Ltd SCTR No. 3 of 2023 to argue that receipts were mandatory. However, the Court distinguished that decision, stating:

The Falcon case was based on Supreme Court Rules, which require receipts.

“That case applied Supreme Court rules, which mandate receipts. In contrast, at the High Court, Regulation 51 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations only requires receipts if requested by the taxing officer.”

Since the taxing officer did not require receipts, the disbursement award was lawfully made and upheld.

The applicable law at the High Court is Regulation 51 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations, which only requires receipts if the taxing officer requests them.

In this case, the taxing master did not require receipts and was within her discretion to allow the disbursements.