Wakilii

Byaruhanga Barigye v Tumusiime Kabega and Co. Advocates and Another (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 206 of 2019)

Industrial Court · [2020] UGIC 57 · 2020 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application arising from Labour Dispute Reference No. 277 of 2018 seeking to restrain advocates from representing respondent due to alleged conflict of interest
Decision
Application partly allowed — Mr. Kabega barred from representing 2nd Respondent but law firm may continue representation through other advocates

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 Industrial Court held that where an advocate is likely to be called as a witness in proceedings, Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations prohibits that advocate from continuing to represent a party. Mr. Kabega, being both a partner in the respondent law firm and a Director of the 2nd Respondent, was barred from appearing as counsel. However, the court declined to condemn the entire law firm for one partner's conflict, holding that other advocates in the firm could continue representing the 2nd Respondent.

Outcome

Application partly allowed — Mr. Kabega barred from representing 2nd Respondent but law firm may continue representation through other advocates

Facts

The applicant brought an unfair dismissal claim against Kampala Cement Co. Limited (2nd Respondent) in Labour Dispute Reference No. 277 of 2018. Tumusiime Kabega & Co. Advocates (1st Respondent) represented the 2nd Respondent. The applicant sought to restrain the 1st Respondent from representing the 2nd Respondent on grounds that the firm's officers, particularly Mr. Macdosman Kabega, were his former colleagues and co-agents at the 2nd Respondent for over five years, making them privy to operational activities and documents relevant to his employment dispute. Mr. Kabega was both a partner in the 1st Respondent law firm and a Director of the 2nd Respondent. The applicant intended to call Mr. Kabega as a witness in the main claim. The respondents denied the applicant was ever employed by the 2nd Respondent and argued the 1st Respondent had always been the 2nd Respondent's legal representative, a fact known to the applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Respondent law firm is in a conflict of interest position by representing the 2nd Respondent when its officers are potential witnesses in the main labour dispute claim.
  2. Whether Mr. Macdosman Kabega, as both a partner in the 1st Respondent law firm and a Director of the 2nd Respondent, should be barred from representing the 2nd Respondent.
  3. Whether the entire law firm should be restrained from representing the 2nd Respondent or only the individual advocate in a conflict position.

Orders

  • Application substantially dismissed.
  • Mr. Macdosman Kabega barred from appearing as counsel for the 2nd Respondent.
  • The 1st Respondent law firm (excluding Mr. Kabega) permitted to continue representing the 2nd Respondent.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legal Representation — Conflict of Interest — Advocate as Witness
Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations prohibits an advocate from appearing before any court in a matter where the advocate has reason to believe he or she will be required as a witness, and if it becomes apparent during proceedings that the advocate will be required as a witness, the advocate shall not continue to appear.
Legal Representation — Conflict of Interest — Dual Role as Director and Counsel
Where an advocate is both a partner in a law firm representing a party and a director of that party, and is likely to be called as a witness regarding matters within his knowledge as director, the advocate is barred from representing that party to avoid a conflict of interest under Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations.
Legal Representation — Law Firm Liability for Individual Partner's Conflict
Where an individual advocate in a law firm is in a conflict of interest position, the entire law firm should not be condemned for that individual advocate's acts or omissions. Other advocates in the firm who are not in a conflict position may continue to represent the client.
Witnesses — Listing in Pleadings — Leave to Call Additional Witnesses
A party who indicates in the memorandum of claim an intention to testify personally and to apply for leave to call other witnesses is not barred from seeking leave of court to call witnesses not specifically named in the pleadings, particularly where those witnesses are directors or management of the opposing party.
Legal Representation — Client Confidentiality — Advocate as Witness
The duty to maintain client confidentiality does not automatically bar an advocate from being called as a witness in proceedings against the client. The party claiming prejudice from breach of confidentiality must prove what information is confidential and what prejudice would be occasioned by its disclosure.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Ayebaziwe Raymond v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd and Others (Civil Suit No. 165 of 2012)
  • Henry Kaziro Lwandasa v Kyas Global Trading Co. Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 865 of 2014)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Kasirye Byaruhanga and Company Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Byaruhanga_Barigye_v_Tumusiime_Kabega_and_Co._Advocates_and_Another_(Labour_Dispute_Miscellaneous_Application_206_of_2019)_[2020]_UGIC_57_(25_February_2020)
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.