We have already stated that in appropriate cases value of the subject matter can be a basis for the taxation of a bill of costs. But in our view we repeat that the decision in this case is such that value cannot nor could it be a basis for taxation of the instruction fee. We think that the learned judge properly applied the relevant principles to the matter before him and accordingly grounds (a) and (b) must fail. Ground (c) states that:“The Learned judge erred in Principle when he attempted to separate developments on the land from the ownership of the land and further failed to distinguish possession from ownership” The leasehold interest which this court declared to be covered by S.(1) (1)(C) is dependent on decision of Minister of Finance. In view of the clear provisions of S.1 of the Act we think that this criticism of the judge has no basis. Until the applicant repossesses the suit land their leasehold interest remain in the nature of “former owners”. The leasehold interest has actually not been transferred to the applicants. In the passage we have reproduced earlier the learned judge stated that:“……..the nature of the property of the Trustees was connected to the fundamental issue concerning (expropriation); but it was not a question of transferring title yet. It was the intellectual argument whether the property which the Trustee (sic) lost in 1972 could be covered by the Act of 1982 that was paramount. The Supreme Court decided that the lease hold property could be covered by the various subsections of section 1 of the Act of 1982.” Here the learned judge correctly summarized the decision of the Court. In our view that is a fair interpretation of the decree which the applicants got from this court. The learned judge did not therefore attempt to separate the leasehold from the property thereon as submitted by Mr. Byenkya. This ground must therefore fail. In the result ground (d) is now irrelevant. Ground (c) states that:-