we have just reproduced above, and contended further that it would be wrong to use inapplicable principles to the facts of this case. He argued, and we again agree with him, that the ruling in Attorney General Vs. Uganda Blanket Manufacturers (1973) Ltd (Supra) is distinguishable on the facts. The decision of this Court on appeal in Uganda Blankets case finally decided the case and gave proprietary rights to winners in the appeal. The Blankets Manufacturers had sued Government and obtained declaration that Uganda Blankets Manufacturers Ltd (1973) Ltd were the rightful owners of the business premises, and factory, the assets and properties which it had taken over during 1973. In our view that is an important difference. In the substantive appeal of the applicants we have already stated that this Court did not go that far. The Court declined to give full proprietary rights to the applicant when Wambuzi C.J., declared (page 11 of his judgment), that:“It was not shown that the respondent has the power or legal capacity to grant a repossession certificate. Accordingly I would decline to give a declaration regarding entitlement to a repossession certificate which may be against the interest of persons or authorities who are not a party to these proceeding.” Mr. Byenkya attacked the ruling of the judge for holding that the value of the suit land was a proper basis for the taxation of costs. As we have observed the learned judge gave his reasons for so holding. We have already reproduced the passage containing those reasons. We see no reason to hold that the learned judge erred. The applicants did not attempt when valuing the suit land to value the pre-1972 developments separately from the post-1972 developments. It was in that respect unfair on the part of the applicants to criticize the learned judge for not ordering for taxation to be based on separate valuation. In any case this was unnecessary. Even if separate values were made, we think that that would not on the facts have affected the decision of the judge on the shows, the judge was aware that there were old buildings (officers’ Mess) before 1972. We are satisfied that the learned taxing officer misdirected himself in relying on the value of the property including developments made by persons who were not party to the suit.