Paul MUKIIBI@pmpaulmukiibi
High Court Sets Aside Advocate–Client Bill of Costs Taxed at over UGX 1.5 Billion by the Deputy Registrar and Remits It for Re-Taxation Before a Different Judicial Officer, citing that the Deputy Registrar failed in several respects:
(1) absence of subject-matter valuation, as the rulings did not indicate how the value of the subject matter was determined, yet this is the primary basis for instruction fees;
(2) failure to analyse each item, as the bill was taxed in a generalised fashion without providing specific reasons for each contested item, contrary to established practice;
(3) excessive and arbitrary awards, including instruction fees exceeding UGX 100,000,000/= for simple interlocutory applications, far beyond the prescribed scale and without any justification based on complexity or novelty; and
(4) lack of reasoned rulings, as the rulings did not demonstrate application of discretion or reference to the governing rules, leaving the awards unsupported.
The Court stated that instruction fees should not be so excessive as to discourage public access to courts, nor so low as to demoralise new entrants to the profession.
It further noted that while a taxing officer enjoys discretion to increase instruction fees, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with established principles; where the awards are so excessive as to constitute an injustice, an appellate court is entitled to interfere.
In the present case, the Court found that the awards were not only excessive but also unlawful for want of a proper legal foundation.
Full decision link: drive.google.com/file/d/1MC0oxw…