Wakilii

In Re - Rules of Court No. 2 of 1916 (C.C. 8-34.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1934] EACA 24 · 1934 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference to a Judge in Chambers from the decision of the Taxing Officer under Rule 8 of Rules of Court No. 2 of 1916
Decision
Objection to taxation upheld; Registrar's decision overturned; taxing advocate's claim for instructions to defend disallowed.

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

Instructions to defend cannot be implied from the fact that a client gave an advocate instructions to enter an appearance. Following In re Paine, where there is a conflict between advocate and client as to the authority or retainer without further evidence, weight must be given to the client's denial rather than the advocate's assertion. The advocate must satisfy the court that he was retained or instructed to defend. The objection to the taxation was allowed.

Outcome

Objection to taxation upheld; Registrar's decision overturned; taxing advocate's claim for instructions to defend disallowed.

Facts

On 28 December 1933, the client, having been served with a summons and plaint in a civil suit, went to his regular advocate's office but found it closed. He then went to the taxing advocate's office where he left the summons and plaint and asked the taxing advocate to enter an appearance, which was done. On 29 December 1933, the client went to his regular advocate's office and gave instructions to defend. The taxing advocate filed a bill for taxation claiming a fee of Sh. 60 for instructions to defend, submitting that the client had given him definite instructions both to enter appearance and to undertake the defence. The client stated he had merely instructed the taxing advocate to enter appearance. The Registrar held there were implied instructions to defend and directed taxation to proceed. The client challenged this ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether instructions to defend can be implied from the fact that a client gave an advocate instructions to enter an appearance.
  2. Whether there was a retainer by conduct where the client left documents with an advocate and asked him to enter an appearance but gave no express instructions to defend.
  3. Where there is a conflict between advocate and client as to the retainer, whose evidence should be preferred.

Orders

  • Objections to the taxation allowed.
  • Costs of application against ruling of Registrar to be paid by Mr. Mangat.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocate and Client — Retainer — Implied Instructions to Defend
Instructions to defend cannot be implied from the mere fact that a client has given an advocate instructions to enter an appearance.
Advocate and Client — Taxation — Burden of Proof on Retainer
The advocate must satisfy the court that he was retained or instructed to defend as alleged by his bill.
Advocate and Client — Conflict of Evidence on Retainer
On all questions as to the retainer of an advocate where there is a conflict as to the authority between the advocate and the client without further evidence, weight must be given to the evidence against the advocate rather than to the evidence of the advocate.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Rules of Court No. 2 of 1916 Rule 8

Cases cited (2)

  • In re Paine (1912) 28 TLR 201
  • Crossley v. Crowther

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

In Re - Rules of Court No. 2 of 1916 (C.C. 8-34.) [1934] EACA 24 (1 January 1934)
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.