Premchand Raichand vs. Quarry services (No.3) (1972) Ex 162 at page 164 Attorney General vs. Uganda Blankets Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 1972) (unreported); Nanyuki Esso Service vs. Touring Care Ltd (1972) EA 500; and Patrick Makumbi & Another Vs. Sole Electric (U) Ltd (Supreme court civil Application No. 11 of 1994) (unreported). The relevant parts of rule 109 (1) and (2) (5) read as follows: “(1) Any person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Registrar in his capacity as taxing officer may require any matter of law or principle to be referred to a judge for his decision and the judge shall determine the matter as the justice of the case may require…… (2) Any person who contends that bill of costs as taxed is in all the circumstances, manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate, may require the bill to be referred to a judge and the judge shall have power to make such deduction or addition as will render the bill reasonable. Save as in this subrule provided, there shall be no reference on a question of quantum only. (3)…………. (4)………….. (5) Any person dissatisfied with a decision of a judge given under sub rules (1) or subrule (2) may apply to the court to vary, discharge or reverse the same…………” The complaints raised against the ruling judge are to the effect that he should not have interfered with the taxation of the taxing officer in respect of the instruction fee. Alcohol Mr. Kasirye proposed to separate grounds (a) and (b) in his arguments, he actually argued them together. We shall consider them together. The first and second in the reference state that:-