the Court to get a value as of the time the appellants were dispossessed of plot 1 being that it was vacant. Counsel invited Court to consider the situation at the time of dispossession in 1972. With due respect, I find it difficult to accept Mr. Maloba’s submission on this point because by the time the suit was instituted in the High Court plot 1 Bombo Road was developed. The suit regarded the subject matter in question as at the time the suit was filed. I am inclined to consider the subject matter as it was at the time the suit was filed.” In our opinion, the holding of the learned taxing officer wholly failed to appreciate the decision of the appeal by this court to the effect that declaration regarding entitlement to a repossession certificate would be against the interests of persons or authorities who were not before the Court. Certainly Sure House which is on plot 1 Bombo Road is such an interest of persons who were not before the Court and therefore its value could not have been taken into account for purposes of taxation of costs. This the learned judge found to be erroneous and we agree with him. It is a pity that the value upon which the taxing officer allowed instruction fee ofshs. 70,000,000/= was the valuers aggregate value of all the property on the two plots (inclusive of new developments). Hence He exaggerated the value. Value can be and is often taken into account during taxation but in this case that could not and should not have been the method. We have fully considered the arguments by Mr. Byenkya and Mr. Ssekandi on the decision made by this court in the appeal. We are persuaded by the arguments of Mr. Ssekandi to the effect that the decision of this Court concerned the correct interpretation of Section 1(1) (c) of the Act in relation to the suit land. The Court declared the status of the applicant in relation to the suit land. By that decision the applicant became “former owners” with the consequence that the applicants can lodge application for repossession. Thus in the suit brought in the High Court, the applicants prayed for the following declaratory orders. (i) The Expropriate properties Act, 1982 applied to the property. (ii) The applicants were entitled to a certificate of repossession; and (iii) A permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit land.