C. C. Chandran v Kengrow Industries Ltd (Civil Application 22 of 2002) [2003] UGSC 21 (14 May 2003)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff37\stshfdbch0\stshfloch37\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;} {\f2\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New;}{\f37\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050604050505020204}Bookman Old Style;}{\f43\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603020202020204}Trebuchet MS;} {\f48\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0602030504020204}Lucida Sans Unicode;}{\f56\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Microsoft Sans Serif;}{\f273\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f274\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f276\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f277\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f278\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f279\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f280\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f281\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}{\f293\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE;} {\f294\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Cyr;}{\f296\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}{\f297\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Tur;}{\f298\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New (Hebrew);} {\f299\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New (Arabic);}{\f300\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}{\f301\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New (Vietnamese);}{\f643\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Bookman Old Style CE;} {\f644\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Cyr;}{\f646\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Greek;}{\f647\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Tur;}{\f650\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Baltic;} {\f703\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Trebuchet MS CE;}{\f704\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Cyr;}{\f706\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Greek;}{\f707\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Tur;}{\f710\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Baltic;} {\f753\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode CE;}{\f754\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Cyr;}{\f756\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Greek;}{\f757\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Tur;} {\f758\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode (Hebrew);}{\f833\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif CE;}{\f834\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Cyr;}{\f836\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Greek;} {\f837\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Tur;}{\f838\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Hebrew);}{\f839\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Arabic);}{\f840\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif Baltic;} {\f841\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Vietnamese);}{\f842\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Microsoft Sans Serif (Thai);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255; \red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;} {\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\loch\f37\hich\af0\dbch\af0\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 Style1;}{\s16\qc \li0\ri0\sl-331\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Style2;}{ \s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 Style3;}{\s18\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext18 Style4;}{\s19\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 Style5;}{\s20\ql \li0\ri0\sl-485\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext20 Style6;}{\s21\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext21 Style7;}{ \s22\ql \li0\ri0\sl-317\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext22 Style8;}{\s23\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext23 Style9;}{\s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl-480\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext24 Style10;}{ \s25\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext25 Style11;}{\s26\qj \fi-715\li0\ri0\sl-487\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext26 Style12;}{\s27\qj \fi-571\li0\ri0\sl-483\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext27 Style13;}{ \s28\qj \fi-432\li0\ri0\sl-483\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext28 Style14;}{\s29\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext29 Style15;}{\s30\qj \li0\ri0\sl-485\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext30 Style16;}{ \s31\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext31 Style17;}{\s32\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext32 Style18;}{\s33\ql \fi-816\li0\ri0\sl-490\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext33 Style19;}{\s34\qj \fi-259\li0\ri0\sl-485\slmult0 \nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext34 Style20;}{\s35\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext35 Style21;}{\s36\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext36 Style22;}{\s37\qj \li0\ri0\sl-486\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext37 Style23;}{\s38\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext38 Style24;}{ \s39\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext39 Style25;}{\*\cs40 \additive \b\f37\fs38 \sbasedon10 Font Style27;}{\*\cs41 \additive \b\f37\fs42 \sbasedon10 Font Style28;} {\*\cs42 \additive \b\f37\fs26 \sbasedon10 Font Style29;}{\*\cs43 \additive \b\f37\fs30 \sbasedon10 Font Style30;}{\*\cs44 \additive \b\i\f37\fs26 \sbasedon10 Font Style31;}{\*\cs45 \additive \i\f43\fs20 \sbasedon10 Font Style32;}{\*\cs46 \additive \f37\fs26 \sbasedon10 Font Style33;}{\*\cs47 \additive \i\f43\fs18 \sbasedon10 Font Style34;}{\*\cs48 \additive \f56\fs18 \sbasedon10 Font Style35;}{\*\cs49 \additive \f56\fs16 \sbasedon10 Font Style36;}{\*\cs50 \additive \b\f2\fs30 \sbasedon10 Font Style37;}{\*\cs51 \additive \f56\fs18 \sbasedon10 Font Style38;}{\*\cs52 \additive \i\f43\fs20 \sbasedon10 Font Style39;}{\*\cs53 \additive \i\f37\fs26 \sbasedon10 Font Style40;}{\*\cs54 \additive \f43\fs18\expnd4\expndtw20 \sbasedon10 Font Style41;} {\*\cs55 \additive \f0\fs22 \sbasedon10 Font Style42;}{\*\cs56 \additive \f56\fs16\expnd4\expndtw20 \sbasedon10 Font Style43;}{\*\cs57 \additive \f48\fs18 \sbasedon10 Font Style44;}}{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid3169779 \rsid6036908\rsid6234565}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\author owner}{\operator owner}{\creatim\yr2008\mo2\dy20\hr15\min8}{\revtim\yr2008\mo2\dy20\hr15\min26}{\version3}{\edmins18}{\nofpages12}{\nofwords3661}{\nofchars20869} {\nofcharsws24482}{\vern24689}}\paperw11905\paperh16837\margl1025\margr1745\margt343 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind1\viewscale150\viewzk2\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot6036908 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6234565 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6234565 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6234565 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6234565 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\colsx60\titlepg\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s29\qj \li4443\ri-2\widctlpar\faauto\rin-2\lin4443\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs45\i\f43\fs20\insrsid6234565 PAGE}}{\fldrslt {\cs45\i\f43\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid6234565 7}}}{\cs45\i\f43\fs20\insrsid6234565 \par }}{\footerf \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6234565 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb96\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs40\b\f0\fs38\insrsid6234565 \par }{\cs40\b\f0\fs38\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 REPUBLIC OF UGANDA \par }\pard\plain \s16\qc \li1843\ri1685\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin1685\lin1843\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par }\pard \s16\qc \li1843\ri1685\sb72\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin1685\lin1843\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT MENGO \par }\pard \s16\qc \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par }\pard \s16\qc \li0\ri0\sb106\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (CORAM: TSEKOOKO, KAROKORA AND KATO, JJ. S. C) \par }\pard\plain \s18\qc \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par }\pard \s18\qc \li0\ri0\sb115\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs41\b\f0\fs42\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22 OF 2002 \par }\pard\plain \s16\qc \li0\ri0\sb77\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 BETWEEN \par }\pard\plain \s21\qc \li0\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\tldot\tx7330\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908 \par }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 C. C. CHANDRAN\tab APPLICANT \par }\pard\plain \s16\qc \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 AND \par }\pard\plain \s21\ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\tldot\tx6874\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6234565 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 KENGROW INDUSTRIES LTD\tab RESPONDENT

\par }\pard\plain \s22\ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par }\pard \s22\ql \li0\ri0\sb24\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 [Taxation reference from ruling of a single Justice (G. W. Kanyeihamba, J. S. C) dated 21}{ \cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\super\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 st}{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 November, 2002 in Civil Application No. 17 of 2002.] \par }\pard\plain \s23\ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par }\pard \s23\ql \li0\ri0\sb101\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs43\b\f0\fs30\ul\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 RULING OF THE COURT}{\cs43\b\f0\fs30\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 : \par }\pard\plain \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb211\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 This is a reference to us from the ruling of Kanyeihamba, J. S. C as a single Justice of this Court on a reference from the Registrar as a taxing officer. The learned Justice reduced the amount awarded by the taxing officer. \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb29\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 We give a brief background. There was an appeal in this Court in which the present applicant was the respondent while the present respondent was the appellant who lost the appeal. The former presented a bill of costs to the Registrar of this Court. The Registrar, as taxing officer, awarded the applicant shs. 16,000,000 as instruction fees. The respondent was unhappy with the award. He referred the matter to the single Justice. \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb67\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 The single Justice reduced the award from shs. 16,000,000/= to shs. 5,000,000./=. The applicant was dissatisfied. He has now referred the matter to us. The reference is made under Rules 105(7), 41(1) and 1(3) of the Rules of this Court. The reference is by way of motion. In the motion, the applicant asks the Court to reverse the decision of the single Justice. The motion sets out the following grounds in support of the reference: - \par }\pard\plain \s26\qj \fi-715\li1430\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1430\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s26\qj \fi-715\li1430\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1430\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 a). The instruction f ee of shs. 5,000,000 which was awarded by the learned Justice was manifestly inadequate and an error in law. \par }\pard\plain \s27\qj \fi-571\li1258\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1258\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s27\qj \fi-571\li1258\ri0\sb10\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1258\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 b). The learned Justice of the Supreme Court erred both in law and fact in holding that the subject matter of the appeal was a sum of shillings slightly above 30,000,000. \par }\pard\plain \s28\qj \fi-432\li1104\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1104\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s28\qj \fi-432\li1104\ri0\sb14\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1104\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 c). The learned Justice of the Supreme Court erred and/or exercised/applied wrong p rinciples in determining/ assessing the instruction fees, thereby making an erroneous award. \par }\pard \s28\qj \fi-427\li1085\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1085\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s28\qj \fi-427\li1085\ri0\sb19\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1085\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 d). The learned Justice of the Supreme Court erred at law and misguided himself, and made an erroneous award when he based his decision }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 to }{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 reduce the award of the taxing master (sic) on the dimentional reduction in other decided cases cited, by him, other than the awards themselves made therein and the principles relied on. \par }\pard\plain \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Mr. Muziransa, counsel for the applicant, made an affirmation dated of 27}{\cs46\f0\fs26\super\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 th}{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 November, 200 2 in support of this reference. The contents of the affirmation are similar to the grounds set out in the motion and reproduced above. Before us, Mr. Muziransa, as counsel for the applicant, first argued grounds (b), (c) and (d) together before he argued ground (a): \par }{\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb235\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 In respect of the three grounds [(b) (c) and (d)], Mr. Muziransa submitted that the learned Justice did not direct his mind to the principles governing taxation of costs in this Court and especially Paragraphs (2) and (3) of rule 9 of the Third Schedule to the Rules of the Court. He referred to a number of cases decided by this Court including: }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 A. A. Kassam and 2 others vs. Habre International }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Civil Application 16/99 (unreported). Counsel contended that the single Justice erred when he held that the subject matter was shs. 30,000,000/= which, according to learned counsel, should be shs. 64,945,000/=. Therefore, contended counsel, the award of shs.5m/= was too low. Dr. Byamugisha, for the respondent, supported the decision of the single Justice co n tending, and here we agree with him, that Mr. Muziransa was mistaken in regard to the subject matter of the appeal because Mr. Muziransa considered the award to be the amount appearing in the decree of the Court of Appeal as the subject matter rather that the amount decreed by this Court which was relevant for purposes of the taxation of costs in this}{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908 }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Court. Dr. Byamugisha submitted that each case must be decided on its own facts. He referred us to }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 General Parts (U) Ltd Vs Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust }{ \cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 - Civil Application 21/2000 (unreported) for the view that inflation should be taken into account in awarding costs. Learned counsel referred to a number of other decisions illustrating the trend regarding taxation of costs in this Court. In each of the se cases the Court reduced the awards made by taxing officers. Learned counsel asked us to give guidance on taxation of instruction fee. Although arguments on grounds (b), (c) and (d) were general. It is neater for us to consider each. We begin with groun d (b). The passage in the ruling from which this reference arose and for which Mr. Muziransa criticised the learned Justice appears at pages 8 and 9 and states: - \par }\pard\plain \s34\qj \fi-259\li1008\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1008\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par }\pard \s34\qj \fi-259\li1008\ri0\sb230\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1008\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 "The record shows that when the respondent's appeal was allowed in this Court, the Court awar ded him a sum of US $ 12,600 which according to the then applicable rate at shs. 1800 to the dollar is approximately same shs. 13,000,000. He was also awarded other sums amounting to shs. 7,240,000 making a total of slightly over shs. 30,000,000. The sum a warded includes an award of shs. 5,000,000 as general damages for breach of contract. Consequently the claim the respondent hoped to get from this Court when he filed the appeal was in the range of about shs. 25,000,000. In the respondent's bill of cost s dated 17}{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\super\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 th}{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 June, 2002, Counsel drew up a bill of shs. 61,582,000 which included an instruction fee of shs. 50,000,000. In my view, where a successful party has been claiming shs. 25,000,000 and is awarded a sum of shs. 30,000,000/= to claim the sum of shs 61,582,000 and ask to be awarded the sum of shs. 50,000,000 costs and instructions fee respectively is outrageous. I find it hard to understand minds of counsel who can boldly present bills of costs which are about the same as or greater than }{ \cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\expnd-6\expndtw-30\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 the }{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 value of the subject matter of the litigation." \par }\pard\plain \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb14\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Obviously in the last part of the above passage, the learned Justice expressed himself very strongly to demonstrate his disapproval of the claim for instruction fee in the case. Whilst exaggerated bills of costs must be discouraged by Courts, we may say, i n passing, that each case must be decided on its own facts. For it is not impossible to find a case where the taxed costs in a case exceed the value of the subject matter. Many factors would influence the calculation of costs to be awarded. Such factors m ay include cost of transport occasioned by many adjournments. \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb19\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 With respect to Mr. Muziransa, we can not agree that the learned Justice misdirected himself on the law especially rule 9 of the 3}{\cs46\f0\fs26\super\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 rd}{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Schedule and on the facts. The learned Justice was alive to the facts of the case. We have just reproduced a passage from his ruling showing how the Justice computed the figure of shs 30 million. At page 9 of his ruling the Justice stated: -}{ \cs50\b\f0\fs30\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 "}{\cs50\b\i\f0\fs30\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 I}{\cs50\b\f0\fs30\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 }{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 note that neither Counsel nor the learned taxing officer showed keen interest in computing the actual sum in shillings which was finally awarded. Mr. Muziransa figured that the subject matter of the litigation was Sixty million shillings. It is a mystery a s to where he got the sum from. The taxing officer stated boldly in his ruling that the matter was around shs. 40,000,000. M/s Enid Endroma, Counsel for the applicant, seems not to have bothered about the sum of money awarded by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2001." \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 This certainly demonstrates that the learned Justice directed his mind to the facts of the case. In his address to us Mr. Muziransa has not shown that in the facts mentioned by the Justice, the Justice quoted wrong figures. After the Just ice noted the deficiencies in submissions before the taxing officer of counsel for both sides, the Justice concluded that the amount of shs. 50,000,000 claimed and the amount of shs. 16,000,000 awarded by the taxing officer was manifestly excessive. The J u stice then referred to the recent decisions by this Court relating to the taxation of costs and wondered why taxing officers do not refer to such decisions. Of course, before us Mr. Muziransa contended that the learned Justice was wrong in relying on thos e cases, instead of relying on the cases cited by Mr. Muziransa, to decide the reference. Counsel argued that the}{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908 }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Justice was wrong to assume that the subject matter was shs.30,000,000/= Incidentally these same cases relied on by the Justice have been cited to us. They include: }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Bank of Uganda Vs Banco Arabe Espanol }{ \cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Civil Application 23 if 1999 (unreported), }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Attorney General Vs Uganda Blankets Manufacturers, }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Civil Application 17 of 1993 and }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 General Parts (U) Ltd Vs Non - Performing Assets Recovery Trust, }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Civil Application 21 of 2000. \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb14\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908 \par }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 We note from his ruling that in fact the learned Judge considered these and other cases before he concluded that the amount awarded as instruction fees of shs. 16m/= was excessive and therefore he reduced it to shs. 5m/=. \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb10\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 We hav e not been persuaded by Mr. Muziransa that the Justice misdirected himself either on the facts or in law when he concluded that the subject matter of the appeal was shs. 30M/ = . That is what the decree of this court really reflects, though in dollars and Uganda shillings. The finding was based on the facts of the case. That is a finding, which we are unable to upset because no error has been pointed out to us. \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb14\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 We now have to answer the question: Did the Justice misapply rule 9(2) and (3) as contended by Mr. Muziransa? These provisions read as follows: - \par }\pard\plain \s30\qj \li710\ri0\sb10\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin710\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 "9(2) The fee to be allowed for instructions to appeal or oppose an appeal shall be a sum that the taxing officer considers reasonable, having regard to the }{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\ul\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 amount involved}{ \cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 in the appeal, its nature, impor tance and difficulty, the interest of the parties, the other costs to be allowed, the general conduct of the proceedings, the fund or person to bear the costs and all other relevant circumstances. \par }\pard \s30\qj \li701\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin701\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (3) The sum allowed under sub paragraph (2) shall include a ll the work necessarily and properly done in connection with the appeal and not otherwise chargeable including attendances, correspondence, perusals, and consulting authorities." \par }\pard\plain \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 The framers of sub paragraph (2) (quoted above) for some reason did not consider it necessary to set out a scale of instruction fee to be paid in respect of appeals in this Court. As the Rules show, the assessment of fees is left to the good judgment of t he taxing officer who must award a figure which he/she "considers reasonable". In other words, he exercises judicial discretion. In the case of }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Premchand Raichand Vs Quarry Services (No.3) (1972) EA 162 }{ \cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 at page 164, the East African Court of Appeal referred to an English decision regarding assessment of a brief fee which is the same thing as instruction fee and said: - \par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \li413\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin413\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s20\ql \li413\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin413\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 [The correct approach in assessing a brief fee is, we think, to be found in the case of }{ \cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Simpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd Vs Hendon Corporation }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (1964) 3 ALL. E. R.833 in which PENNYQUICKS, J., said }{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 "One must envisage a hypothetical counsel capable of conducting the particular case effectively but unable}{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908 }{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 or unwilling to insist on the particularly high fee, sometimes demanded by counsel of pre-eminent reputation. Then one must estimate what fee this hypothetical character would be content to take on the brief] \par }\pard\plain \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 This approach which we think reflects the correct approach was adopted in the recent decision by this Court in the case of }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Paul Ssemoger ere & Olumu Vs Attorney General }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 - Civil Application No.5 of 2001 [unreported]. Court expanded on the }{\cs46\f0\fs26\ul\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Pennyquicks J's }{ \cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 summary of what the lawyers for each side had submitted to him. In }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Ssemogerere case }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 this Court stated: - \par }\pard\plain \s37\qj \li725\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin725\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs53\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 "In our view, there is no formula by which to calculate the instruction fee. The exercise }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 is }{\cs53\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 an intricate balancing act whereby the taxing officer has to mentally weigh the diverse general principles applicable, which sometimes, are against one another in order to arrive at the reasonable fee. Thus while the taxing officer has to keep in mind that the successful party must be reimbursed expenses reasonably incurred due to the litigation, and that advocates, remuneration should be at such level as to attract recruits into the legal professi o n, he has to balance that with his duty to the public not to allow costs to be so hiked that courts would remain accessible to only the wealthy. Also while the taxing officer is to maintain consistency in the level of costs, it is settled that he has to m a ke allowance for the fall, if any, in the value of money. It is because of consideration for this intricate balancing exercise that taxing officer's opinion on what is the reasonable fee, is not to be interfered with lightly. There has to be a compellin g reason to justify such interference. See }{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Premchand Raichand Ltd. }{\cs53\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 case (Supra). }{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Attorney General Vs Uganda Blanket Manufactures Ltd, }{\cs53\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (Supra); and }{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Departed Asians Property Custodian Board Vs Jaffer Brothers }{ \cs53\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (Supra). \par }\pard \s37\ql \li768\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin768\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs53\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 These considerations apply to a taxing officer as well as to a single Judge or a court reviewing taxed costs."

\par }\pard\plain \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb24\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Since there is no mathematical formula for calculating the instruction fee for prosecuting or defending an appeal, this appears to us to be a compromise approach. \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 What is required of a taxing officer is to exercise his or her discretion judiciously so as to award an amount he/she "considers reasonable." That of course is where the problem of balancing lies. As stated in }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Ssemogerere case }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (supra) we have many cases of this Court which set out guidance in the taxation of instructions fee: See }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Makula International Ltd Vs H. E. Cardinal Nsubuga and Another }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (1982) HCB 11 and }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 The Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute Vs Departed Asians Property of Custodian Board, }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Civil Application 3 of 199 3, among others. Yet in spite of these guidelines, taxing officers continue erring by awarding exhorbitant costs as instruction fee. \par Rule 101 (1) of the Rules of this Court gives this court power to assess costs. It states:- \par \sect }\sectd \marglsxn1022\margrsxn1742\margtsxn218\sbknone\linex0\colsx60\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6234565 \par }}\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sb262\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par }\pard\plain \s30\qj \li768\ri0\sb67\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\tldot\tx2592\faauto\rin0\lin768\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 "When making any decision as to payment of}{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908 }{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 costs, the Court may assess or direct them to be\line taxed\tab " \par }\pard\plain \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 In view of these provisions and the apparent inability by taxing officers to follow guidelines set out by decisions of this Court, it may be time now for this Court itself to assess costs at the conclusion of each Civil Appeal. At any rate taxing officers can be left to tax disbursements while instruction fee is assessed by the court. Normally the court would know the nature of the case \par }{\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 The contention of Mr. Muziransa in effect is that the amount on the basis of which taxation should have been made should have been the amount set out in the decree of the Court of Appeal namely shs. 64,945,000/= because that was the basis of the appeal. That amount include s interest at the rate of 20%. He relied on a number of decisions of this Court. One of the decision is }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 General Parts Vs NPART }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (supra) which in our view is not quite to the point. In that case a single Justice had ruled, on a reference to him from a taxing officer, that no amount of money was involved in arguing the appeal from which the taxation arose. Upon his ruling being referred to the Court where he was criticised for that holding, the full Court agreed with him that the point argued in that appeal wa s a point of law. No amount of money had been involved in the appeal. The Court, however increased the award from 5m/= to 15m/= on grounds which do not arise in the present reference. Mr. Muziransa also relied on }{ \cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Kassam's case }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (supra). That is a decision of a single Justice of this Court, Mukasa Kikonyogo, JSC, as she then was. It was a reference from a taxation ruling of a Registrar. Mr. Muziransa submitted that in that case the subject matter of litigation was shs. 60m/= and that the single Justice had awarded shs. 15m/ = as instruction fees and a further shs. 5m/= as fees for arguing additional grounds. On the basis of that, counsel argued that in the present case the single Justice's award of shs. 5m/= is too low. \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb29\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 We think that that }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Kassam's case }{ \cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 is distinguishable from the present case. In the first instance, the original amount which was the subject of litigation in }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Kassam's case }{ \cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 was shs. 70m/=. Even if it is assumed that that amount was the issue for the decision and that that was the amount involve d in that appeal, that amount is clearly more than the amount involved in the present case. Secondly, and this is the most important distinction, the principal issue argued in }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Kassam's appeal }{ \cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 in this Court involved one main point of law, namely the interpretation of Sections 11 (2) and 14 (1) of the }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Expropriated Properties Act, 1982 and Regulation 8 of the Regulations }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 made under that Act. Counsel for the appellant in }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Kassam's case }{ \cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 lodged a bill in which he claimed two sums one as instruction fees to argue t he appeal and the second as instructions fees for arguing additional grounds of appeal. The taxing officer awarded to the appellant shs 30m/= in respect of the former and shs 15m/= in respect of the latter. In the reference before the single Justice in th at case the complaints about these amounts were grounds 2 and 5. \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb67\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 A number of cases of this Court as well as rule 9 (2) and (3) (supra) were cited to the single Justice. She referred to the cases and the law and stated that the taxing officer correctly state d the law [Rule 9 (2) and (3))] and the principles laid down on taxation. She held that an award of shs 30m/= to argue the appeal was excessive, and therefore she reduced it to 15m/=. She further held that an award of shs 15/= for arguing additional groun ds was excessive since the amount involved in the appeal was shs 70m/= and reduced this last award to shs 5m/ = . This particular aspect of }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Kassam's case }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 is actually against the argument by Mr. Muziransa that the award of shs 5m/= is too low in an appeal where the amount involved is say shs 64m/=. Ground [b] must therefore fail. \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908 \par }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 We shall next consider ground (c). With respect to Mr. Muziransa, we have not been persuaded that the learned Justice erred and/or exercised/applied wrong principles in determining/a ssessing the instruction fee. In his affirmation in support of the reference, Mr. Muziransa stated: \par }\pard\plain \s33\ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s33\ql \li0\ri0\sb154\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\tx701\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 3.}{\cs44\i\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \tab }{ \cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 "That in assessing and determining the reduction,}{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908 }{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 the Learned Justice erred and/or misapplied the principles of taxation and misguided himself when he based his decision on authorities not applicable to the matter at hand. \par }\pard \s33\ql \fi-816\li816\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin816\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par }\pard \s33\ql \fi-816\li816\ri0\sb235\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\tx816\faauto\rin0\lin816\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 4.}{\cs44\i\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \tab }{ \cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 That the subject matter appeal involved}{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908 }{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 complicated questions of law and fact. \par }\pard\plain \s26\qj \fi-758\li758\ri0\sb67\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin758\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 5. }{ \cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908 \tab }{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 That the learned Judge erred in principle when he failed to properly take into consideration the inflation and the fact that the subject matter appeal (sic) was a final disposal of all matters and issues at hand as between the parties in the original su it." \par }\pard\plain \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb230\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 There are three complaints. The first is that the Justice failed to apply properly the principles of taxation. The second is that the appeal involved complicated questions of law. The last is failure to take inflation into account. We have in a way d ealt with these complaints. Mr. Muziransa contended that the learned Justice did not direct his mind to the principles governing taxation of costs in this Court and relied on the }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Kassam case }{ \cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (supra) }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Habre International Case }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (Supra) and Rule 9 (2) and (3). We are puzzled by these contentions of Mr. Muziransa. The record before us does not include the address to the single Justice by counsel, but in his ruling, the Justice states that Dr. Byamugisha had cited a number of cases including }{ \cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Premcharnd Richard Vs Quarry Services of East Africa }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (1972) EA 162, }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Bank of Uganda Vs Banco Arabe Espanol, }{ \cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 and }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Attorney General Vs-Uganda Blankets, }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 and rule 9 (2). We have mentioned these authorities already. The Justice further states that Mr. Muziransa addressed him on the same Paragraph 9 (2) as well as on the decision of this Court in }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 General Parts Vs Non performing Assets recovery Trust, }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (supra) to support the view that the taxing officer had applied proper and relevant principles of taxation in this case and that he had ta ken inflation into account. Mr. Muziransa had also relied on }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Kassam's case }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (supra). \par }\pard\plain \s26\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Then the learned Justice opened his opinion with these words: }{\cs44\b\i\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 "Having perused the record of proceedings and the ruling of the learned taxing officer and having heard counse l for both parties and reviewed the authorities cited, it is my opinion that the decision of the taxing officer of this Court is guided by the provisions of Rules 9 of the Rules of this Court" \par }\pard\plain \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb10\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 The Justice then analysed the Figures in the proceedings and concluded that he was guided by such decision as }{ \cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Bank of Uganda Vs Banco Arabe Espanol}{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 _(Supra), }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Attorney-General Vs Non - Performing Assets Recovery trust }{ \cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (Supra) and the }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute Vs Departed Asians Property Custodian Board. }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 After alluding to the figures and amounts awarded, the learned Justice revised the award given by the taxing officer from shs 16m/= to 5m/=. With respect we do not see the basis on which Mr. Muziransa criticised the learned Justice on grounds that the Jus tice misguided himself and did not properly apply the law and principles applicable to taxation of costs in this Court. Rule 9 of the 3}{\cs46\f0\fs26\super\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 rd}{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Schedule to the Rules of this Court contains the principal provisions of the law which govern taxation of instruction fee by taxing officers in this Court. That law was cited to the Justice by counsel and the Justice applied it. The Justice relied on cases cited to him by counsel for both sides. In these circumstances, we find Mr. Muziransa's criticism of the \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb67\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Justice both unwarranted and baseless. Ground. (C) must, therefore, fail. \par }\pard \s24\ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par }\pard \s24\ql \li0\ri0\sb221\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Ground (d): }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 has been set out earlier.}{ \cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565 \par }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908\charrsid6036908 \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 In the foregoing discussions, we have disposed of this ground. Cases relied on by the learned Justice cited by both sides. In any case, in considering any issue raised before him a Justice is not prohibited from considering authorities not cited by counsel so long as such authorities are relevant to the controversy between the parties Ground (d) must fail. \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb10\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 We now discuss ground (a). Mr. Muziransa's complai nt is that the instruction fee of shs 5m/= which was awarded by the learned Justice was manifestly inadequate and an error in law. Counsel argued that the amount of shs 16m/= awarded by the taxing officer was not manifestly excessive. He criticised the Ju s tice for relying on cases decided in 1990, contending that because of inflation the Justice should have upheld the award of shs 16m/ = . On the other hand Dr. Byamugisha referred to the latest decisions on the subject and these have been cited earlier in this ruling. The case in point is }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 General Parts (U) Ltd }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (Supra) which case also alludes to inflation. We do not agree that the Justice relied on the decisions of 1990s. }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 General Parts }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (Supra) was decided on 12/1/2001 by a bench of three. }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Bank of Uganda }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 (supra) was decided on 19}{\cs46\f0\fs26\super\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 th}{ \cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 April 2000 and }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Kassam's case }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 was decided by a single Justice on 12/1/2000. These are recent decisions. All of them were cited to the Justice for his consideration. In his ruling the Justice states that he reviewed all the cases cit ed to him. He specifically stated that he was guided by two of these same cases, among others. Indeed the ruling of the Justice indicates that Mr. Muziransa relied on }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 General Parts }{ \cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 case, in his submission before the Justice for the view that General Parts is one of the cases which reflect the general principle that are applied in taxation of costs in this Court. \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 We agree that inflation has to be borne in mind when taxation of costs is done. But we cannot accept that inflation should be a basis for awarding exhorbitant costs. Many other factors set out in paragraph (2) of rule 9 of }{ \cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Schedule 3 }{\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 must be considered -Mo reover, we think that under Rule 105 (3) of the Rules, a Justice exercises discretion in deciding whether the bill of costs as taxed is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate. He makes a decision on the basis of materials before him or her. The Jus t ice in this reference before us demonstrated in his ruling that he reviewed the materials available before him including the Rules of Court and the case law. We have power to vary, discharge or reverse decision of the single Justice. However we have not b een persuaded that the learned Justice exercised his discretion injudiciously and or wrongly in reducing the award from shs 16m/= to 5m/=. Ground (a) must therefore fail. \par }{\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par }\pard \s24\qj \li0\ri0\sb5\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs46\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 In the result the reference is unsuccessful. The application is dismissed. The respo ndent shall have the costs of this reference and those before the single Justice. \par \sect }\sectd \marglsxn1383\margrsxn2103\margtsxn639\sbknone\linex0\colsx60\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6234565 \par }}\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sb242\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par }\pard\plain \s24\qc \li0\ri0\sb67\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\tldot\tx4618\tldot\tx7613\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs46\b\i\f0\fs26\up1\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 Dated at Mengo the 14th day of May 2003. \par }\pard\plain \s21\ql \li0\ri3629\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin3629\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 \par \par \par }\pard \s21\qc \li0\ri15\sb197\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\faauto\rin15\lin0\itap0\pararsid6036908 {\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 J. W. N. TSEKOOKO}{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908 \par }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT}{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908 \par \par }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 A. N. KAROKORA}{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908 \par }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT}{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908 \par \par }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 C. M. KATO}{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6036908 \par }{\cs42\b\f0\fs26\insrsid6234565\charrsid6036908 JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT \par }}