Wakilii

Bonus Kazooba v Levi Tugume (Civil Suit No.143 of 1993) (Civil Suit No.143 of 1993)

High Court · [1999] UGHC 20 · 1999 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection to counsel's appearance raised during hearing of civil suit between co-directors of a limited company
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed and matter to proceed to substantive hearing

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 82 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 82 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 91 citing cases on record, 57 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 rule prohibiting an advocate from acting as both counsel and witness is not violated until the advocate is actually called as a witness. The court cannot make an order to prevent an anticipated violation. The preliminary objection was not specifically pleaded as required. Objection overruled with costs to the defendant.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed and matter to proceed to substantive hearing

Facts

The plaintiff and defendant are co-directors holding equal shares in Lebonnex (U) Ltd, incorporated in 1989. The plaintiff sued the defendant for an accounting of company business, refund of allegedly embezzled funds, and damages. At the hearing date, plaintiff's counsel raised a preliminary objection that defendant's counsel, Mr. Muhwezi, was the company secretary and had participated in settlement discussions between the parties, making him a likely witness who should be disqualified from appearing. Both counsels had previously signed a consent form agreeing no witnesses would be called. The defendant's counsel denied having personal knowledge of the parties and argued he appeared for the company and managing director, not the defendant individually.

Issues

  1. Whether counsel for the defendant should be disqualified from appearing because he was likely to be called as a witness in the proceedings.
  2. Whether the preliminary objection should have been specifically pleaded under Order 6 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. Which party is entitled to costs of the preliminary objection.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Costs of the preliminary objection awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Advocates — Professional Conduct — Advocate Acting as Both Counsel and Witness
An advocate may not act both as counsel and witness in the same case, but this rule is not violated until the advocate is actually called as a witness, and the court cannot make an order to prevent an anticipated violation.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Matters to be Specifically Pleaded — Preliminary Objections
Under Order 6 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a party must raise by pleading all matters showing that an action is not maintainable or that would take the opposite party by surprise. A contention that opposing counsel is likely to be called as a witness must be specifically pleaded to avoid taking the opposite party by surprise.
Civil Procedure — Costs — General Rule — Costs Follow the Event
The general rule is that costs shall follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders. The successful party is entitled to costs unless guilty of misconduct or where there is some other good cause for not awarding costs.
Company Law — Corporate Personality — Separate Legal Entity
A company registered under the Companies Act is a legal person distinct from the individuals who are its members, and the company's debts are those of the company and cannot be enforced against the members.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Christopher Kayoboke v Dol Mugasha and others (HCCS No. 650 of 1991)
  • Francis Babumba and 2 others v Erusa Bunja (HCB 1988-1990 p. 119)
  • Jafferi and another 1971 EA p. 1165
  • R Vs. Secretary of State for India Exp Ezekiel 1941 AE R p 46
  • Solomon vs. Solomon & co, Ltd
  • Francis Butagira v Deborah Namukasa (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1989)
  • Kiska Ltd Vs. Angelis 1969 EA 6

Cases citing this judgment (30)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bonus Kazooba v Levi Tugume (Civil Suit No.143 of 1993) (Civil Suit No.143 of 1993) [1999] UGHC 20 (15 July 1999)
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.