Mr. E.K. Ssekandi, counsel for the respondent, submitted that the suit (in the court below) and the subsequent appeal to this court involved an ordinary case in which the Expropriated Properties Act, 1982 was discussed; that the respondent was taken to Court because it wrongly interpreted the Act. That the appeal succeeded only on the point of interpretation. Mr. Ssekandi contended that not all matters litigated upon have monetary value attached to them since some litigation might be for the sake of jurisprudence. In his view it was wrong in principle to attach monetary value to the subject matter of the suit. In such cases what is at stake in the appeal should be the matter to be considered and cited Allen vs. Pratt (1888) 13 App. (case 780) quoted in cooper & Another vs. Nevill & Another (1959) EA at page 76 in support. Learned counsel asserted that the appeal did not finally settle the rights between the parties. That the applicant never got the property itself. We agree with the learned judge that the taxing officer erred in his ruling. The learned taxing officer misdirected himself when he held (page 4) that: “The appeal was allowed and orders sought were granted, hence this will of costs.” This was erroneous because out of the three orders sought only one was granted by this Court. We further think that the learned taxing officer in basing his taxation on the aggregate value of pre 1972 property and post 1972 property misdirected himself while making taxation in respect of instruction fee. In his ruling he stated this:“Mr. Byenkya counsel for the appellant on this point submitted that Plot Bombo Road is a developed piece of land. It has a large commercial building partly occupied by a super market and a number of shops. The building is known as Sure House. That plot No. 38 is similarly developed ……… Counsel further submitted that (his firm) commissioned a firm of the market value assessed at $ 2.1 million (Shs. 2.1 billion/=)…………….. On this point Mr. Maloba, counsel for the respondent submitted that court should consider the fact that at the time plot 1 Bombo Road was dispossessed of the appellants, it had no developments thereon. They were dispossessed in 1972 and it would be fair for