Wakilii

Haji Hasahya v Owori & Co Advocates & Anor (Miscellaneous Application appeal No. 0032-2013)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 4 · 2014 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Deputy Registrar's taxation decision under section 62 of the Advocates Act
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondents

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 High Court dismissed the appeal from the Deputy Registrar's taxation decision, upholding the order that the appellant personally pay the Respondent advocates' costs. The court held that the Registrar properly exercised discretion under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act in ordering personal costs, that the appellant failed to prove his defences including allegations of forgery and payment settlement, and that the Respondents complied with statutory notice requirements under section 57 of the Advocates Act.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondents

Facts

The appellant acted as administrator of the estate of the late Yunusu Miya. The Respondent law firms claimed they were instructed to represent the estate in various matters and filed applications for taxation of their advocate-client bills of costs. The appellant contested the claims before the Deputy Registrar, arguing among other things that he had settled the first Respondent's fees for UGX 3,000,000, that family meeting minutes relied upon were forged, that the advocates lacked practising certificates, and that he had not received proper demand notices. The Deputy Registrar overruled the appellant's objections, ordered the bills to be taxed, and directed the appellant to pay the costs personally. The appellant appealed to the High Court raising eight grounds.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Registrar erred when she ordered that the appellant personally pays costs for Misc. App. 201/2011.
  2. Whether the learned Registrar erred when she disregarded the appellant's contention that the 1st Respondent had accepted UGX 3,000,000 in full and final settlement of its fees.
  3. Whether the learned Registrar erred when she wrongly based her decisions on minutes that were forged and ignored the original minutes.
  4. Whether the learned trial Registrar erred when she ruled that the Advocates were licensed Advocates during their representation of the Estate.
  5. Whether the learned trial Registrar wrongly taxed the bill of costs of Madaba, Modoi & Company in absence of clear instructions.
  6. Whether the learned trial Registrar erred when she allowed taxation when Kalifani who instructed the firm was not an Administrator of the Estate.
  7. Whether the learned trial Registrar wrongly struck out the affidavit of the appellant's co-Administrator Ali Miya dated 20th December 2011 and erred when she relied on the affidavit dated 9th January 2012.
  8. Whether the learned trial Registrar erred when she did not consider the appellant's contention that he had not been served with the demand notice dated 10th August 2011.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Personal Costs Orders Against Representatives
A court or registrar has discretion under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to order a party representative to personally pay costs where that representative's conduct in blocking legitimate claims causes unnecessary litigation, rather than facilitating lawful payments from the estate they represent.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Allegations of Forgery
The burden of proving fraud or forgery lies upon the party alleging it. Merely asserting in submission that documents are forged without leading independent evidence does not amount to proof on a balance of probabilities.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Section 101 of the Evidence Act
Under section 101 of the Evidence Act, whoever desires a court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts must prove that those facts exist. The burden does not shift merely because a party mentions a fact.
Employment & Labour — Advocates' Fees — Contentious Business Agreements — Section 50 of the Advocates Act
An agreement for contentious business under section 50 of the Advocates Act can be entered between counsel and client excluding any claim by the advocate in respect of business to which it relates other than costs expressly excepted. The party alleging such an agreement must prove its terms to the required standard.
Employment & Labour — Advocates' Fees — Demand Notices — Section 57 of the Advocates Act
Section 57 of the Advocates Act requires an advocate to serve a demand notice together with the bill of costs at least one month before applying to have the bill taxed. Where demand notices were issued in August and the application filed in November, the 30-day notice requirement is satisfied.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Solo David and Another v Pagali Abdu (Civil Appeal No. 0027 of 2009)
  • Wamiha Saw Milling Co. Ltd v Walone Timber Co. (1962) AC 101
  • Jovelyn Bamgahare v Attorney General (SCCA No. 28 of 1993)
  • Makula International v. Cardinal Nsubuga

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Haji Hasahya v Owori & Co Advocates & Anor (Miscellaneous Application_appeal No. 0032-2013) [2014] UGHCCD 4 (10 January 2014)
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.