Wakilii

Fahad Siraji TA Astute Advocates v Mujumba Farouk [2025] UGHC 1588

High Court · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to tax advocate-client bill of costs
Decision
Application granted; applicant permitted to proceed to taxation of advocate-client 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 held that a valid advocate-client relationship existed between the parties. The remuneration agreement was declared unenforceable for non-compliance with Section 57(1) of the Advocates Act and void to the extent it contravened Rule 26 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations by providing for contingency fees. However, the court granted the applicant leave to tax his advocate-client bill of costs, holding that an advocate is not deprived of the right to fair remuneration for professional services rendered merely because the fee agreement is defective. The proper remedy is taxation under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations to determine reasonable remuneration for work done.

Outcome

Application granted; applicant permitted to proceed to taxation of advocate-client bill of costs

Facts

The applicant advocate was instructed by the respondent client on 28 March 2023 to institute a suit against Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) for recovery of UGX 2,000,000,000 and/or land at the New Taxi Park. The instruction letter provided for payment of UGX 300,000,000 as advocate instruction fees. The applicant filed HCCS No. 0285 of 2023 on 5 April 2023 and represented the respondent throughout the proceedings until the matter was concluded by consent judgment on 1 October 2024. On 15 January 2025, the applicant served a signed bill of costs and demand notice on the respondent. The respondent refused to pay, claiming he had already paid UGX 30,000,000 by mobile money and UGX 2,000,000 in cash, and that the remuneration agreement was illegal and unenforceable. The applicant denied receiving any payment except UGX 2,000,000 for filing fees. The respondent also claimed he personally handled all negotiations leading to the consent judgment without the applicant's participation, and that the agreed fee was contingent on recovering UGX 2,000,000,000 from KCCA, which never occurred.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant and Respondent had a valid advocate-client relationship.
  2. Whether the professional work of the Applicant remains unpaid and whether the remuneration agreement is illegal or unenforceable under the Advocates Act and Professional Conduct Regulations.
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to leave to tax an advocate-client bill of costs.

Orders

  • The remuneration agreement (Annexure A) between the parties is declared unenforceable for non-compliance with Section 57(1) of the Advocates Act and void to the extent that it contravenes Rule 26 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations.
  • Pursuant to Section 56(4)(b) of the Advocates Act, the Applicant is granted leave to file and have his Advocate-Client Bill of Costs taxed before the Taxing Master, the remuneration to be assessed as if the agreement had never been made.
  • The costs of this Application shall abide the outcome of the taxation.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocate-Client Relationship — Formation — Proof
The relationship between an advocate and a client is contractual in nature and must be proved like any other contract. The easiest method of proving an advocate-client relationship is a written retainer agreement or engagement letter, but neither a written contract nor an express appointment and acceptance is essential to the formation of the relationship. The relationship may be established by mutual agreement manifested in express words or conduct, including the parties' behaviour, correspondence, invoices for services rendered, proof of payment, and other relevant facts.
Advocates' Remuneration Agreements — Formal Requirements — Enforceability
An advocate-client remuneration agreement under Section 56(1) of the Advocates Act is not enforceable unless it complies with the requirements of Section 57(1), which demand that the agreement be in writing, signed by the person bound by it, certified by a notary public confirming that the terms were explained to the client, and that a copy be transmitted to the Secretary of the Law Council. An agreement that fails to satisfy any of these requirements is unenforceable, and any advocate who obtains or seeks to obtain any benefit under such an agreement is guilty of professional misconduct.
Advocates' Remuneration — Contingency Fees — Illegality
A remuneration agreement that provides for an advocate to be remunerated by a percentage of the amount recovered constitutes a contingency fee agreement for contentious business, which is void ab initio as it offends Rule 26 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations, Section 61 of the Advocates Act, and the principles of public policy against champerty. Agreements which tie an advocate's remuneration to the outcome of litigation or a percentage of proceeds are contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable.
Advocates' Remuneration — Unenforceable Agreements — Right to Taxation
Where a remuneration agreement is found to be void, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable, an advocate is not thereby deprived of the right to fair remuneration for professional services rendered. Section 56(4)(b) of the Advocates Act expressly empowers the court, where an agreement is void or unenforceable, to declare it void and order the costs covered by it to be taxed as if the agreement had never been made. This provision reflects the equitable principle that a client who has received the benefit of legal services should not be unjustly enriched at the expense of the advocate merely because a fee agreement is defective in form.
Taxation of Costs — Advocate-Client Bills — Leave to Tax
The effect of Sections 56(3) and (4) of the Advocates Act is not to extinguish an advocate's entitlement to fees where a remuneration agreement is defective, but rather to render the defective agreement incapable of direct enforcement as a contract. The proper remedy in such cases is taxation under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations to determine reasonable remuneration for work done. Granting leave to tax ensures that the advocate's fees are assessed fairly and transparently by the taxing master, while affording the client an opportunity to contest any excessive charges within the framework of taxation.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (2)

  • Matovu & Matovu Advocates v Damani Jyotibala & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2021)
  • Kituma Magala & Co. Advocates v Celtel Uganda Ltd (SCCA No. 9 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Fahad Siraji TA Astute Advocates v Mujumba Farouk 2025 UGHC 1588 (21 October 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.