|Case Number||TAXATION REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 2019|
This Application was brought by the Secretary General of the East African Community (‘the Applicant’) under Rules 114, 84(1), 84(2) and 85(1) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2013. It arises from Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2019, which itself arose from Reference No. 17 of 2014 and challenges the taxed bill of costs awarded in favour of the Rt. Hon. Margaret Nantongo Zziwa (‘the Respondent’).
In the said Application, the Applicant seeks to move this Court for orders that:
The Taxation Ruling made by the Learned Taxing Officer on the 4th day of June 2019 awarding instruction fees against the Applicant which, coupled with Value Added Taxes of 18 per cent of instruction fees and getting up fees being a quarter of the instruction fees culminated in USD 359,376.99 should be set aside for a more reasonable and less awards.
The Taxing Officer took into account irrelevant matters and did not properly abide with the legal principles in reaching his decision and also failed to appreciate the submissions of Counsel for the Applicant and there are also mathematical miscalculations in the summation of the awards that are prejudicial to the Applicant and need to be addressed; and
Costs of this taxation reference be paid by the Respondent.
At the hearing, the Applicant was represented by Dr. Anthony Kafumbe, Counsel to the Community (CTC); while the Respondent was represented by Messrs. Jet Tumwebaze and Justin Semuyaba.
|Respondent||MARGARET N. ZZIWA|
|Complainant||THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY|
|Countries||East African Community|
First Instance Judgment
|Verdict||In the premises, and for the reasons that we have given above, we allow this Taxation Reference and set aside the decision on the instruction fees in the Taxation Ruling made by the learned Taxing Master on the 4th day of June, 2019. In place of the said decision, we award instruction fees of USD 140,000 together with getting up fees of one quarter thereof, being USD 35,000. We do not interfere with any other aspect of the learned Taxing Master’s Ruling, including the award of VAT and disbursements. In terms of costs, Rule 127 of the Court’s Rules proposes that costs should follow the event unless the Court, for good reason, decides otherwise. In this case, having only intervened with regard to one (1) aspect of the Taxing Master's decision, we deem it appropriate that each Party bears its own costs. It is so ordered.|
|PDF document||Download the decision as PDF|
|Date delivered||June 19, 2020|