Wakilii

Bashaija v M/s Alliance Advocates (Miscellaneous Application 33 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 399 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for discovery arising from miscellaneous cause seeking costs for legal services
Decision
Application for discovery dismissed

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

Application for discovery of a remuneration agreement dismissed. The court held that the applicant failed to prove the document existed and was in the respondent's possession. The respondent stated the agreement was misplaced and that the amount claimed was not based on the agreement but on quantum meruit for partial execution of instructions. The court found the document irrelevant since the respondent was not claiming the amount stated in the alleged agreement.

Outcome

Application for discovery dismissed

Facts

The applicant sought an order compelling the respondent law firm to discover and produce a remuneration agreement allegedly entitling the firm to payment of UGX 350,000,000. The respondent had filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 246 of 2022 seeking costs for legal services rendered in processing letters of administration and pursuing compensation for land taken by government in 1971-1972. The respondent opposed the discovery application, stating no written agreement existed, that the signed copy was misplaced, and that the claim was not based on the alleged agreement but on quantum meruit since other lawyers completed the matter after the respondent had negotiated with the Ministry of Defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the document sought is within the possession and power of the Respondent.
  2. Whether the document is relevant and essential for the determination of the matter.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Discovery — Conditions for Grant of Discovery Order
For an order for discovery to be granted, the applicant must satisfy four conditions: the document must be relevant and material to the matter in question; the document must not be privileged or protected by law; the document must be in the respondent's possession, custody, control or power; and attempts to obtain the document voluntarily must have been futile.
Civil Procedure — Discovery — Relevance and Materiality
A document sought to be discovered must be relevant to the determination of the pending suit before the court. Where the party seeking discovery claims a document contains terms of an agreement but the respondent states the claim is not based on that agreement, the document is irrelevant and discovery will not be ordered.
Civil Procedure — Discovery — Document Must Be in Possession of Respondent
An applicant seeking discovery must prove that the document sought exists and is in the possession, custody, control or power of the respondent. Where the respondent states the document has been misplaced and is not in their possession, the application for discovery will fail.
Civil Procedure — Court Orders — Orders Not to Be Made in Vain
Court orders cannot be made in vain. Where it is clear that a respondent is not in possession of a document sought to be discovered, the court will not make an order for its production.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (10)

  • Kisuule v Greenland Bank Ltd [2009] HCB 33
  • Turyatemba & Others v Attorney General & Another [2010] 2 EA 443
  • Compagnie Financiere v Peruvian Guano Company (1882) 11 QBD 55
  • John Kato v Muhibaner AG & Anor (HCMA 175 of 2011)
  • Simbamanyo Estates Limited & Anor v Equity Bank Uganda Limited and 4 Ors (MA No. 583)
  • Simbamanyo Estates Ltd & Anor v Equity Bank Uganda Limited and Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 583 of 2022)
  • Real Contractors Ltd v Rubanda District Local Government (Civil Suit No. 53 of 2021)
  • Gerald Kafureka Karuhanga & Another v Attorney General & Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 60 of 2015)
  • Patricia Mutesi v Attorney General (MA No. 912 of 2016)
  • Housing Finance Ltd & Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bashaija v M_s Alliance Advocates (Miscellaneous Application 33 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 399 (18 September 2023)
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.