Wakilii

Francis Kabali Sebbowa T A Sebbowa & Co. Advocates v Nadya Dimitrova Mileva (Miscellaneous Application 1847 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 106 · 2025 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 arising from High Court Civil Suit 867 of 2022
Decision
Leave granted to tax the advocate-client bill of costs

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

Held that an advocate-client relationship can be established by implied retainer inferred from the conduct of the parties, including drawing and filing legal documents, representation in court, and the client's acknowledgment of the advocate as her legal representative. Where an advocate has rendered legal services without a written agreement and the client has not paid, the advocate is entitled to leave to tax the bill of costs under the Advocates Act. Bank statements adduced as affidavit evidence must comply with the Evidence (Bankers' Books) Act to be admissible.

Outcome

Leave granted to tax the advocate-client bill of costs

Facts

The respondent instituted High Court Civil Suit 867 of 2022 against KCB Bank for breach of banker-customer relationship after UGX 121,025,185 was illegally withdrawn from her account. The applicant advocate drew pleadings, filed documents, and represented the respondent in the suit and related matters without a written retainer agreement. On 21 May 2024, the respondent changed advocates. The applicant delivered a bill of costs totaling UGX 31,120,503.70 on 5 June 2024. The respondent refused payment, claiming she had not personally instructed the applicant but that Trigger Enterprises Limited, a company where she was director, had engaged and paid the applicant under a corporate arrangement. The applicant applied for leave to tax the bill. Evidence showed the respondent had acknowledged the applicant as her advocate in emails and court proceedings, and the company denied having a corporate agreement with the applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit evidence of the respondent contravenes the law and should be struck out.
  2. Whether the Applicant acted under the instructions of the Respondent.
  3. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to tax the advocate-client bill of costs.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Leave granted to the registrar to tax the applicant's bill of costs in Civil Suit No. 867 of 2022 and other matters arising therefrom until 21st May 2024.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocate-Client Relationship — Implied Retainer — Establishment by Conduct
An advocate-client relationship may be established by implied retainer inferred from the conduct of the parties, including the drawing and filing of legal documents, representation in court, and the client's acknowledgment of the advocate as her legal representative, even in the absence of a written retainer agreement.
Implied Contracts — Objective Test of Intention
In determining whether an implied contract exists, the court applies an objective test focusing on whether a reasonable person observing the conduct of the parties would conclude that they intended to create a legally binding relationship, rather than on the parties' subjective beliefs.
Admissibility — Bank Statements — Evidence (Bankers' Books) Act
A bank statement adduced as evidence in affidavit proceedings must comply with the requirements of the Evidence (Bankers' Books) Act, including proof that the book was an ordinary book of the bank, that entries were made in the usual course of business, and that the copy has been examined against the original entry. A bank statement that does not meet these requirements is inadmissible.
Affidavit Evidence — Applicability of Evidence Act
The Evidence Act does not apply to affidavits, which are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules and the Oaths Act. However, specific statutes such as the Evidence (Bankers' Books) Act may impose additional requirements for the admissibility of particular types of documentary evidence adduced in affidavits.
Advocates Act — Taxation of Bills of Costs — Requirements for Leave
Under section 63 of the Advocates Act, an advocate must wait one month after delivering a signed bill of costs to the client before commencing legal action to recover fees. Where the client does not request taxation within the specified period and the advocate has fulfilled the statutory requirements for delivery of the bill, the court may grant leave to tax the bill.
Advocate-Client Relationship — Burden of Proof — Corporate Arrangement Defence
Where a client asserts that legal services were rendered under a corporate arrangement with a third party rather than pursuant to a personal retainer, the burden of proof lies on the client to prove the existence of such arrangement. Failure to adduce the alleged corporate agreement in evidence is fatal to the defence.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (7)

  • Tesfalidet Ghebrat v Marlin Advocates and Another (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 196 of 2020)
  • Ntege Mayambala v Christopher Mwanje (High Court Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1991)
  • Namayega Barbara v Etot Denis and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 939 of 2019)
  • Matovu and Matovu Advocates v Damani Jyotibala and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2021)
  • Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd v Mwesigwa Geoffrey Philip (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 477 of 2012)
  • David Kato Luguza and Another v Evelyn Nakafeero and Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2011)
  • Life Insurance Corporation of India v Panesar [1967] EA 615

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.

Francis Kabali Sebbowa T A Sebbowa & Co. Advocates v Nadya Dimitrova Mileva (Miscellaneous Application 1847 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 106 (25 April 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.