Wakilii

Busingye & Another v Matovu (Miscellaneous Cause 50 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 115 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to tax an advocate-client bill of costs
Decision
Leave granted to tax advocate-client bill; personal representatives directed to cause payment from respondent's estate of taxed costs and costs of application

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

The High Court granted leave to tax the applicants' advocate-client bill of costs. Though the instruction documents lacked certificates of translation as required by the Illiterates Protection Act and were therefore void, the respondent's personal representatives had tacitly recognised the validity of the engagement by requesting details of fees owed. The court found that the respondent had not been shown to be permanently incapable at the time of instruction and that where a benefit was derived, payment remained due under the Contracts Act. Personal representatives were directed to cause payment from the respondent's estate of the taxed costs.

Outcome

Leave granted to tax advocate-client bill; personal representatives directed to cause payment from respondent's estate of taxed costs and costs of application

Facts

The applicants, advocates, claimed they were instructed by Geresome Tabula Matovu on 24 February 2024 to recover 500 shares in a company, retrieve documents, and pursue compensation from Government. They contend they successfully recovered the shares and secured documents but their instructions were terminated by the respondent's personal representatives before payment. The respondent, aged 93 and diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2019, had been adjudged unable to manage his affairs in HCMA 78/2022. His personal representatives contested the claim, asserting he lacked capacity to instruct the applicants, that the instruction documents were defective, and that different advocates had already been appointed to pursue the compensation claim. The court found the instruction documents lacked translation certificates as required by the Illiterates Protection Act, rendering them void, but noted the respondent's representatives had previously requested details of fees owed.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants validly received instructions from the respondent to undertake legal work for which they now claim payment.
  2. Whether non-compliance with the Illiterates Protection Act renders the instruction documents void.
  3. Whether the respondent had capacity to contract at the time of instructing the applicants, given his diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease.
  4. Whether leave should be granted to tax the applicants' advocate-client bill of costs.

Orders

  • Leave granted to tax the applicants' advocate-client bill of costs.
  • The taxed costs to be paid by Mr Geresome Tabula Matovu.
  • Geresome Tabula Matovu's personal representatives (Faith Nakanwagi Ssemwogerere, Sherina Matovu, Samuel Matambu and Ida Stella Sentamu Gyagenda) are directed to cause payment of the sums taxed.
  • Mr Geresome Tabula Matovu to meet the costs of this application.
  • Geresome Tabula Matovu's personal representatives are directed to cause payment of the taxed costs of this application.
  • Slip rule applied to correct the name of the 1st Applicant from 'Eunice Busingye' to 'Eunice Ainembabazi'.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocate-Client Relationship — Formation of Contract — Evidence Required
The relationship of advocate and client is contractual and may be established by written retainer, engagement letter, or by mutual agreement manifested in express words or conduct. Courts may use evidence including the parties' behaviour, correspondence, invoices, proof of payment, and other relevant facts to establish the relationship. There must be an agreement (oral, written, or inferred) where a person seeks advice, the advice pertains to matters within the advocate's competence, and the advocate agrees to give or gives the desired advice.
Advocate-Client Engagement — Agreement on Fees Not Essential
An advocate-client engagement is not invalidated by the absence of an agreement on fees. What is material is an agreement by the client to instruct the advocate and an agreement by the advocate to take up those instructions. Where no fee is agreed, the Advocates Act and relevant regulations create a framework for determination of the fee.
Taxation of Costs — Advocate-Client Bill — Preconditions Under Section 57
Section 57(1) of the Advocates Act requires that before a suit is brought to recover costs, a bill of costs must be delivered to the party chargeable one month prior. The preconditions are largely procedural, not jurisdictional. Non-compliance is not fatal where the client has participated in proceedings for leave to tax, and the court may grant leave especially where the client has engaged in the application.
Illiterates Protection Act — Effect of Non-Compliance — Voidness of Document
Where a person writes a document for an illiterate, the Illiterates Protection Act requires the writer to state their name and address and to certify that they were instructed by the illiterate, that the document correctly represents the instructions, and that it was read over and explained. Non-compliance with these certification requirements renders the document void. Such a void document cannot form the basis of a legitimate claim.
Void Agreements — Restoration of Advantage — Contracts Act Section 54(1)
Where an agreement is found void or a contract becomes void, a person who received any advantage under that agreement is bound to restore it or pay compensation for it to the person from whom the advantage was received. Therefore, even where instruction documents are void, if a benefit was derived, the recipient remains entitled to payment for the benefit conferred.
Capacity to Contract — Unsoundness of Mind — Lucid Intervals
A person of unsound mind is capable of contracting during periods when they are capable of understanding what they are doing and the impact of their actions (lucid intervals). The burden of proving unsoundness of mind is on the person claiming it. What matters for capacity under the Contracts Act is whether the person was of sound mind at the conclusion of the contract.
Personal Representatives — Liability for Estate Expenses — Contracts of the Adjudged
A person appointed as personal representative to manage the affairs of a person adjudged of unsound mind under the Administration of Estates of Unsound Mind Persons Act manages those affairs as representative, subject to court supervision. Such a person cannot personally bear the expenses or liabilities of the adjudged and cannot become party to contracts entered into by the adjudged. Their role is to cause payment from the estate of sums due in accordance with procedural requirements applicable to their grant.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (31)

  • Matovu & Matovu Advocates v Damani Jyotibala & Ors (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2021)
  • Geoffrey Nangumya v Attorney General & Ors (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 2021)
  • Gavin Edmondson Solicitors v Haven Insurance Company Limited (2018) UKSC 21
  • Joseph Makilap Kipkoros v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others Election Petition No. 2 of 2017
  • City of Oronco v Fitzpatrick Real Estate LLC and Whitney National Bank of New Orleans, Louisiana A15-0055
  • Peter Jogo Tabu v Peter Langi (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2017)
  • Malkinson v. Trim [2003] 2 All ER 356
  • Makumbi v Solle Electrics (U) Ltd (1990-1994) 1 EA 306
  • Premchard Raichand v Quarry Services of East Africa (1972) EA 162
  • Hon Ababiku Esther v Eriyo Jesca HCMA 4,31,27 of 2015
  • Coshott v Barry [2009] NSWCA 34
  • Paul Rujura v Nayebare Fred Kyamuzigita (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2013)
  • Nambowa Rashida v Bavekuno Mafuma (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2016)
  • Stanbic Bank v Moses Ssenyonjo & Anor (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2012)
  • Kasaala Growers Cooperative v Kakoza Jonathan & Anor MA 19/2010
  • Ngoma Ngime v Winnie Byanyima EPA 11/2002
  • Kabuye Abdu & Anor v Magunda Senteza David (High Court Civil Suit No. 37 of 2021)
  • Dr. Rashid Semuddu v Bulaimu Matovu CS 2641-2016
  • Manches v Trimborn (1946) 115 L.J.K.B. 305
  • In the Estate of Park [1954] P. 112
  • Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 C.L.R. 423
  • Re Beaney [1978] 1 W.L.R. 770
  • Ismail v Polish Ocean Liners (1976) 1 ALL ER 902, 907
  • Parchand Freres SA v Establishments General Grain Co. (1970) 1 Lloyds Rep 53
  • Ssentongo Geofrey v Mukono Industries (U) Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 55 of 2012)
  • Israel Kaggwa v Martin Musiga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
  • Aya Investments v International Development Corporation Of South Africa (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 3063 of 2023)
  • Great Lakes Petroleum Limited v Vivo Energy Uganda Limited HCMC 133/2023
  • Smile Communications Limited v ATC Uganda Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 2314 of 2023)
  • Digital Displays Limited v Tim Construction Company Limited & Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 21 of 2015)
  • Mary Among v Tracks International Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 280 of 2010)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Busingye & Another v Matovu (Miscellaneous Cause 50 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 115 (19 April 2024)
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.