Ms Guma and Company Advocates v Lule and Another (Misc cause. 141/2024) [2025] UGHCLD 140 (17 July 2025)

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA LAND DIVISION

MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 0141 OF 2024

M/S GUMA & CO. ADVOCATES ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

VERSUS

1. LULE EDWARD

<table>

2. PROSSY NINSIIMA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BEFORE LADY JUSTICE CHRISTINE KAAHWA

RULING.

This application is brought under Article 40 of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda, as amended, Sections 57, 58, 60 of the Advocates Act, Cap Rule 38, 48 and 57 of the Advocates (Renumeration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Section 33 of the Judicature Act, Cap16, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282 and Order 52 rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for orders that the Applicant's bill of costs against the Respondents be taxed and costs of the application.

The grounds of the application in the affidavit in support deponed by Guma Davis Banda are briefly that;

1. The Respondent instructed the Applicant to represent and defend them in Civil Suit No. 253 of 2020 filed by Senjule Dansan Dan against them. They asked for 14,000,000/= but were only paid 3,000,000/=.

17/07/2025

- 2. That the Applicant filed the defence for the Respondents but Senjule Dustan later obtained an interlocutory judgement against the Respondents. That the Applicant were instructed to file Misc. Application No. 1308 of 2023 to set aside the interlocutory judgment and the application was allowed. - 3. That the Applicant in defending the respondents filled all the required documents including the defendant's trial bundle and witness statements. - 4. That the matter was set down for hearing and the applicant was shocked to be served with a notice of change of advocates from M/S Kajeke, Magulu & Co. Advocates without paying the applicants legal fees.

Representation and hearing.

The Applicant is self-represented, while the Respondents did not file a reply. On the 11^th day of March, 2025 court issued directions to the parties to file submissions however, neither of them complied.

Issue.

Whether there was an advocate-client relationship between the parties and if so was professional work performed and not paid.

Resolution of the issue.

An Advocate-Client relationship originates from instructions by a client which may be oral or written, see Ondoma Samuel v Kana Richard HCMA NO. 16 of 2018

An advocate client costs are those that an advocate claims from his own client and which the Advocate is entitled to recover from the client for professional services rendered to and disbursements made on behalf of the client.

$15107$ ans

$\mathsf{Z}$

In the interpretation section of the Advocates Act, "costs" includes fees, charges, disbursements, expenses and remuneration.

Section 63 of the Advocates Act provides for recovery of an advocate's costs as hereunder;

"63. Action to recover advocate's costs

(1)Subject to this Act, no suit shall be brought to recover any costs due to an advocate until one month after a bill of costs has been delivered in accordance with the requirements of this section; except that if there is probable cause for believing that the party chargeable with the costs is about to quit Uganda, or to become a bankrupt, or to compound with his or her creditors, or to do any other act which would tend to prevent or delay the advocate obtaining payment, the *court may, notwithstanding that one month has not expired from the delivery of the* bill, order that the advocate be at liberty to commence a suit to recover his or her costs and may order those costs to be taxed.

*(2) The requirements referred to in subsection (1) are as follows—*

(a) the bill must be signed by the advocate, or if the costs are due to a firm, one partner of that firm, either in his or her own name or in the name of the firm, or be enclosed in, or accompanied by, a letter which is so signed and refers to the bill; and

(b) the bill must be delivered to the party to be charged with it, either personally or by being sent to him or her by registered post to, or left for him or her at, his or her place of business, dwelling house, or last known place of abode, and where a bill is proved to have been delivered in compliance with these requirements, it shall not be necessary in the first instance for the advocate to prove the contents of the bill

$\overline{3}$

(which shall be presumed until the contrary is shown) to be a bona fide bill complying with this Act."

It is Counsel's contention that the Applicant did not state anywhere in his affidavit in support that he served the Respondent with the Bill of costs as required by section $63(1)$ of the Advocates Act and neither did the Applicant attach a copy of the said Bill to the Application. He further argued that sections $63(1)$ and $63(2)$ , all refer to the Bill of Costs. In the instant case, counsel for the Respondent opines that there is no Bill to be taxed before this Court. To this he contended that counsel for the Applicant is on a fishing expedition trying to mislead Court by quoting section $57(2)$ which is now section 63(2) of the Advocates Act in total disregard of section $57(1)$ now section 63(1). He relied on the case of Omongole and Company Advocates Vs Ecetu Vincent HCMA No. 0002 of 2023 where Justice Adonyo J as he then was held that, where there is no written agreement as to the fees payable, the taxing must then assumes full authority to determine the rightful costs depending on the work done by the Advocate, however, the requirement under Section $57(2)$ which is now $63(2)$ must be met in totality before the same can be ordered. Court further held that in the instant case, no Bill of Costs within the meaning of Regulation 47 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulation or letter accompanying the intended Bill has been served onto the Respondent and as such the Requirements of Section $57(2)$ now $63(2)$ of the Advocates Act have not been met.

The Court in the above matter, dismissed the Applicant's Application for failure to comply with Regulation 47 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations and section $57(2)$ now section $63(2)$ of the Advocate's Act. He further beefed up his argument by quoting the case of Peter Jogo, Tabu and Co. Advocates vs Waco Fred HCMA No. 030 of 2009 relied on by counsel for the

17/07/2025

$\overline{4}$

Applicant at page 3, where Court held that in the absence for fees, if dispute arises between an Advocate and a Client regarding the amount of fees payable such that the cost have to be taxed, the Client is provided with special protection under the taxation process, in such a case, no suit can be commenced to recover any costs due to an Advocate until one month after a Bill of Costs has been delivered in accordance with the requirements of Sections 57 of the Advocates Act. In the result, counsel invited Court to find that, the Applicant did not comply with Section $63(1)$ and (2) of the Advocates Act Cap 295.

The Applicant stated in their affidavit in support paragraph 3 that they received instructions from respondents to defend them in Civil Suit No. 916 of 2020 filed by Senjule Dansan Dan against them.

That Civil Suit No. 910 of 2020 was dismissed and a fresh suit Civil Suit No. 253 of 2020 was filled where the respondents instructed the Applicant to defend them and the Respondents made a part payment of 3 million.

The Applicant also attaches the pleading they drafted on behalf of the Respondents, witness statements, a receipt of part payment made by the respondents as well as the Notice of Change of Advocate filed by M/S Kajeke, Maguro and Co. Advocates. The above evidence indicates that there indeed existed an advocate client relationship and professional work was performed.

The Applicant also attaches a demand notice written to the Respondents dated 5^th March, 2024 and an advocate client bill of costs received by M/S Kajeke, Maguro and Co. Advocates.

In the case of Serefaco Consultants Limited v Euro Consults and Arcadis Euro Consult CACA No.16 of 2007 while referring to the case of H. G. Gandesha and Kampala Estates Ltd and G. J. Lutaya, SC Civil Application No. 14 of 1989

17/07/2025

$\mathsf{S}$

Kavuma JA stated that: 'It is settled law that if the Applicant supports his application by affidavit or other evidence and the Respondent does not reply by affidavit or otherwise, and the supporting evidence is credible in itself, the facts stand as unchallenged".

Since there is no contrary evidence or opposition to this application, I allow the application with the following orders;

- 1. The Applicant is granted leave to present their Advocate -Client bill of costs for taxation. - 2. Costs of this application awarded to the Applicant.

Dated at Kampala this 17^th day of July 2025.

$K$

Christine Kaahwa

JUDGE