Wakilii

Barnabas Dyadi Kamya t a M s Barnabas D.K. Dyadi & Co. Advocates v Mukiibi Hezekiah and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1920 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 403 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for authorization to tax advocate-client bill of costs arising from settled civil suit
Decision
Application granted; advocate authorized to proceed to taxation of bill of costs

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

The court granted authorization for taxation of an advocate-client bill of costs where the advocate served the bill on former clients, the mandatory 30-day period for payment expired without response, and the respondents failed to file affidavits in reply despite proper service of the application. The court held that uncontroverted averments are taken as accepted and that Section 63(1) of the Advocates Act permits suit for costs one month after delivery of the bill.

Outcome

Application granted; advocate authorized to proceed to taxation of bill of costs

Facts

The applicant advocate provided legal services to the respondents as counsel for defendants in HCCS No. 631 of 2021 from 2021 to 2025. The main suit was settled by consent judgment in February 2025, with parties agreeing to bear their own costs. The applicant issued a brief fee note of UGX 460,000,000 to the first respondent. During a meeting at the first respondent's school, the first respondent agreed to pay UGX 200,000,000 within seven days, but payment was not made. The applicant prepared and served an advocate-client bill of costs dated 9 July 2025 on both respondents (served 14 and 16 July 2025). After the mandatory 30-day period expired without payment, the applicant filed this application on 28 October 2025. The respondents were duly served but did not file affidavits in reply or attend the hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to an order by Court authorizing the taxation of the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs?

Orders

  • An order doth issue authorizing taxation of the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 9th July 2025 arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 631 of 2021 Semakula Yusuf Vs. Mukiibi Hezekiah & Another.
  • The Applicant is awarded costs of the Application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Applications — Affidavits in Reply — Effect of Failure to File
Where a respondent is properly served with an application and fails to file an affidavit in reply within the 15-day period prescribed by Order 12, Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the averments in the applicant's affidavit in support remain uncontroverted and are taken as accepted by the court.
Administrative Law — Advocates — Taxation of Costs — Statutory Prerequisites
Under Section 63(1) of the Advocates Act, no suit may be brought to recover costs due to an advocate until one month after a bill of costs has been delivered to the client in accordance with the requirements of that section.
Administrative Law — Advocates — Taxation of Costs — Procedure for Authorization
An advocate who has served a bill of costs on a client and allowed the statutory 30-day period to expire without payment is entitled to apply to court under Section 66(1) of the Advocates Act for an order authorizing taxation of the advocate-client bill of costs.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (3)

  • The 2010 was quoted
  • David Lubuuka v Fred Joel Nsobya (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 357 of 2016)
  • Gandesha and Another v G.J. Lutaaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1989)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Barnabas_Dyadi_Kamya_t_a_M_s_Barnabas_D.K._Dyadi_&_Co._Advocates_v_Mukiibi_Hezekiah_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1920_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_403_(23_December_2025)
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.