Fides Legal Advocates v Kampala Capital City Authority (Taxation Appeal No. 40 of 2015)

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.

Holding

Held that an application for leave to tax an advocate-client bill of costs under section 57 of the Advocates Act is properly an action for recovery of costs and must be brought by plaint as an ordinary suit. The Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute as to whether fees were due or whether the retainer agreement was enforceable. The proper forum for determining the legality and enforceability of the contract, and whether costs are due, is a civil suit. The appeal was dismissed but the appellant is not barred from pursuing recovery of costs by way of ordinary suit.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed but appellant not barred from filing a civil suit for recovery of costs

Facts

The appellant law firm was appointed by Kampala City Council (later Kampala Capital City Authority) on 15 March 2015 as external advocates on a retainer and case-by-case basis. A formal contract was signed on 27 April 2010 for five years from 18 March 2010 to 18 March 2015. The appellant provided legal services including drafting court papers, making court appearances, drafting agreements and legislation, attending meetings, and providing legal advice on contentious and non-contentious matters. The respondent paid only the retainer fee for March 2010 to March 2011 but did not settle other legal costs. The appellant filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 43 of 2015 seeking leave to tax its advocate-client bill of costs under section 57 of the Advocates Act and rule 10 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules. The respondent opposed the application on the grounds that the retainer agreement was entered without approval of the Contracts Committee, did not comply with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and Regulations, was not cleared by the Attorney General, and was not drawn in accordance with the Advocates Act. The Registrar dismissed the application, finding that the claims arose from different and distinct transactions requiring investigation and that the matter should be pursued by way of civil suit. The appellant appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the learned Registrar erred in law by failing to exercise jurisdiction under section 62(2) of the Advocates Act to refer contentious issues to a judge for final determination.
2. Whether the learned Registrar erred in law by dismissing the application without determining the preliminary objections raised by the respondent concerning the legality of the retainer agreement and compliance with procurement laws.
3. Whether it is in the interest of justice that the appellant be granted leave to tax its advocate-client bill of costs.
4. Whether the advocate's claim for fees arises from an illegal or unenforceable retainer agreement.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed with costs.
• Dismissal does not bar the appellant from filing an action for recovery of costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Advocates Act Cap. 267 s.57
• Advocates Act Cap. 267 s.58
• Advocates Act Cap. 267 s.62
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules S.I. 267-4 r.10
• Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals & References) Regulations S.I. 267-5 r.3
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.3
• Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations S.I. No. 39 of 2006 reg.17(1)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.119(5)

Cases cited (9)

• Byenkya Kihika & Co. Advocates v Saroj Gandesha (HCMA No. 019 of 2014)
• National Union of Clerical, Commercial and Technical Employees v National Insurance Corporation (SCCA No. 7 of 1993)
• Finishing Touches Limited v Attorney General of Uganda (HCCS No. 144 of 2010)
• Kituuma Magala & Co. Advocates v Celtel (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2010)
• Attorney General and Nyombi Peter v Uganda Law Society (Miscellaneous Cause No. 321 of 2013)
• Liberty Construction Limited v R.C Munyani & Co. Advocates (HCMA No. 08 of 2011)
• Kibuuka Musoke and Company Advocates v Liquidator of African Textile Mills Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2006)
• J.B. Byamugisha T/A Byamugisha & Company Advocates v National Social Security Fund (HCMC Nos. 25, 27 and 28 of 2011)
• Sharma v Uhuru Highway Development Ltd [2001] 2 EA 530

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