Wakilii

Aogon Silver Emudong T A Shell Kumi Service Station v Muhammad Golooba and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2050 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 331 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application to disqualify advocates from representing a party on grounds of conflict of interest arising from Miscellaneous Application arising from Civil Suit No. 491 of 2022
Decision
Application for disqualification of advocates dismissed; advocates allowed to continue representing the 3rd Respondent in the main suit

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that the 1st Respondent's position as Company Secretary of Jald (U) Limited, a debt collection agency engaged by the 3rd Respondent, did not render him a material witness under Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations. The court found that mere proximity to pre-litigation events was insufficient; the applicant must show that the advocate possessed unique material knowledge central to the dispute. Since the interactions between the applicant and Jald (U) Limited were not in issue and the 1st Respondent had not been listed as a witness, the application to disqualify counsel was dismissed.

Outcome

Application for disqualification of advocates dismissed; advocates allowed to continue representing the 3rd Respondent in the main suit

Facts

The 3rd Respondent filed a loan recovery suit (HCCS 491/2022) against the Applicant seeking UGX 3,081,429,757 arising from a loan facility of UGX 1,500,000,000 disbursed in December 2018. Prior to filing suit, the 3rd Respondent engaged Jald (U) Ltd, a debt collection agency, to recover the debt. The 1st Respondent, Muhammad Golooba, is the Company Secretary of Jald (U) Ltd and a partner in the 2nd Respondent law firm, Simul Advocates, which now represents the 3rd Respondent in the main suit. The Applicant brought this application seeking to disqualify the 1st and 2nd Respondents from representing the 3rd Respondent on grounds that the 1st Respondent's dual role as Company Secretary of Jald (U) Ltd and counsel for the 3rd Respondent created a conflict of interest and made him a potential material witness in the main suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents are in conflict of interest by representing the 3rd Respondent in the main suit.
  2. Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents are potential witnesses in the main suit and should be barred from representing the 3rd Respondent.
  3. Whether Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations applies to disqualify the 1st and 2nd Respondents from continuing to represent the 3rd Respondent.

Orders

  • Application dismissed for want of merit.
  • Applicant to bear the Respondents' costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocates (Professional Conduct) — Regulation 9 — Test for Disqualification as Witness
An advocate may not appear before court in any matter where he has reason to believe he will be required as a witness. The test is initially subjective (the advocate's belief) and becomes objective during proceedings if it becomes apparent from the evidence that the advocate is likely to be a material witness. The advocate retains the option to decide whether to continue as counsel or step down unless and until actually required as a witness.
Advocates (Professional Conduct) — Material Witness Requirement — Necessity and Materiality
For Regulation 9 to apply, the information the advocate possesses must be material to the dispute or the specific facet of the dispute. Mere presence of an advocate when events leading to proceedings occur is not sufficient; the advocate must be a key or principal actor in such events. If the advocate's knowledge can be proved by other witnesses who are or will be called, Regulation 9 does not apply.
Advocates (Professional Conduct) — Witness Listing — Procedural Requirement
An advocate required as a witness must be listed as a witness in the pleadings under Order 6 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. In the absence of any party requiring the advocate to be a witness or applying for leave of court to do so, unless the court requires the advocate to appear as a witness, it cannot be concluded that the advocate will be required to appear.
Advocates (Professional Conduct) — Regulation 9 Application to Law Firms
Regulation 9 relates to an advocate and not to a firm of advocates. Where an applicant seeks to apply the bar to a firm of advocates, it must be shown that all advocates in the firm are equally barred, or that the proximity of the barred advocates to the rest of the advocates in the firm is such that allowing the firm to maintain conduct of the proceedings would create a real likelihood that the bar in Regulation 9 would be improperly bypassed.
Advocates (Professional Conduct) — Participation versus Proximity — Test for Disqualification
Regulation 9 deals with participation and not proximity. It must be shown that the advocate's involvement clothed him with actual knowledge that can form evidence rather than hearsay. The fact that an advocate was proximate to events, such as by being a principal officer of a related entity, is not sufficient unless it is shown that such involvement gave the advocate actual knowledge that can form evidence.
Advocates (Professional Conduct) — Balancing Right to Counsel and Right to Fair Hearing
Regulation 9 sits at the intersection of the right to a fair hearing (including the right against prejudice) and the right of a litigant to choose their advocate (including to maintain the same advocate who may have acted in pre-litigation proceedings). A court should not be too quick to bar an advocate merely because they participated or were proximate to entities that participated in pre-action events.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • R. V. Secretary for State for India (1941) 2 ALL ER 546
  • Nsubuga v ABSA Bank (High Court Civil Suit No. 716 of 2020)
  • Petlas Lastik San.Ve Tic.AS v Kabuuza Murshid Obanda (Miscellaneous Application No. 1896 of 2025)
  • Raymond Ayebazibwe v Barclays Bank and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 165 of 2012)
  • G. Keshwala v Shunobi Musoke (Miscellaneous Application No. 501 of 2013)
  • Kizito v Kampala Financial Services and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 30 of 2016)
  • Henry Kaziro Lwandasa v Kyas Global Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 865 of 2014)
  • Lwandasa v Kyasa Global Trading Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 865 of 2014)
  • Hussein Mohammed v Mayanja and 5 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 178 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Aogon Silver Emudong T A Shell Kumi Service Station v Muhammad Golooba and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2050 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 331 (3 March 2026)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.