James Matsiko v Davis Nelyonrugabe (civil Application no. 48/2001) [2003] UGCA 36 (4 June 2003)

### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

## IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

# **CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2001** (Rising from Misc. App. No. 928 of 1999)

#### CORAM: HON. LADY JUSTICE L. E. M. MUKASA-KIKONYOGO, DCJ. HON. MR. JUSTICE G. M. OKELLO, JA. HON. LADY JUSTICE C. N. B. KITUMBA, JA.

UGANDA ELECTRICITY BOARD....................................

### **VERSUS**

### CHARLES KABAGAMBE....................................

# **RULING**

$20$

$10$

The respondent acting through M/s James Matsiko, Davis Ndyomugabe & Co. Advocates filed the present bill of costs. It is in a total sum of Shs.33,717,000/= of which Shs.32,508,200/= was claimed as instruction fee.

Counsel for the respondent Mr. Ndyomugabe left the taxation of the bill to the discretion of the Court. For his part, counsel for the applicant Mr. Wamala urged this Court to award an instruction fee of Shs.300,000/ $=$ .

$3()$

The bill of costs arises from the withdrawal of an application in which the applicant sought the leave of this Court to appeal from a ruling of the High Court. Leave had been refused by the High Court.

The applicant had been condemned in costs because it had not given prior notice of its intention to withdraw the application.

I have examined the Court record; I have not found any affidavit in reply or list of authorities from the respondent. But I believe respondent's counsel had done some preparation ahead of the hearing of the application and the time for preparation was not premature. He is therefore entitled to more than nominal fees. However, the application was not a complex one and the subject matter could not have been the stated value of the residential property at Kololo.

I find the sum of Shs.32,508,200/= claimed as instruction fee manifestly excessive. If the application had proceeded on its merits it is doubtful that it would have attracted an instruction fee of more than Shs.3,000,000/ $=$ .

In the circumstances, I deem a sum of Shs.2,000,000/ $=$ reasonable instruction fee.

$20$

$10$

The instruction fee covers attendances before Court, perusals and other work preparatory to the presentation of a party's case. Items charging copies of documents are also not allowable under the rules of this Court. Accordingly items 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, and 19 are disallowed. All the disbursements are allowed.

In the result the respondent's bill of costs is taxed and allowed at Shs.2,038,000/= (Two million and thirty eight thousand Shs.) only.

$\mathcal{L}$

Dated at Kampala this 4<sup>th</sup> day of June, 2003.

$\alpha$ J. B. Sseggirinya Assistant Registrar, Court of Appeal.