Wakilii

Joseph Kiryowa & Co. Advocates v Ahmed Ali Didi (Miscellaneous Cause No. 4 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 253 · 2026 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 arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 569 of 2002
Decision
Application granted; matter referred to Taxing Officer for formal 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 granted leave to tax the advocate-client bill of costs. An advocate who received instructions, diligently executed them over seven years resulting in trial success, served a statutory bill, and remains unpaid is entitled to taxation under the Advocates Act. The respondent's objections based on hearsay claims of payment and incorrect assertions about probate status were dismissed.

Outcome

Application granted; matter referred to Taxing Officer for formal taxation of advocate-client bill of costs

Facts

Joseph Kiryowa & Co. Advocates were retained in 2013 by the late Ali Hajji Abdi to recover salary arrears and damages arising from unlawful dismissal from Tropical Bank Ltd in 2002. During the conduct of HCCS No. 93 of 2013, the firm discovered an undisclosed ex-parte judgment of Shs. 1,412,464,477 against the client in HCCS No. 569 of 2002. The firm successfully set aside the ex-parte decree, consolidated both suits, and secured a successful counterclaim with awards of general damages, interest, and costs in April 2017. The firm extracted the decree and commenced execution, but the process stalled due to ambiguity regarding the quantum of salary arrears. On 2 July 2020, the client withdrew instructions in favour of another firm, with legal fees totalling Shs. 90,000,000 remaining unpaid. The client died on 9 July 2021. Probate was granted to his son, Ahmed Ali Didi, on 27 May 2025. The applicant served a demand notice and itemised bill on the respondent's advocates on 2 September 2025, which was ignored. The respondent opposed the application, claiming the fees had been paid based on verbal assurances from the deceased and that the applicant had failed to complete the mandate.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to tax their advocate-client bill of costs against the respondent?

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the Applicant to tax its Advocate-Client Bill of Costs in High Court Civil Suit No. 569 of 2002 and all derivative applications.
  • The parties shall hold a pre-taxation meeting to jointly identify any agreed costs, fees, or expenses in accordance with Regulation 13A of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations, 2018.
  • The Taxing Officer is directed to fix a date for the formal taxation of the Bill of Costs and notify both parties accordingly.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocate-Client Costs — Requirements for Leave to Tax
For an advocate to obtain leave to tax an advocate-client bill of costs, the court must be satisfied that: (i) the advocate received instructions; (ii) the instructions were diligently executed; (iii) the professional work remains unpaid; (iv) the bill was served; and (v) no payment has been made.
Advocate-Client Relationship — Proof of Retainer
A retainer agreement between advocate and client can be oral, written, or inferred from the conduct of the parties. Documentary evidence such as pleadings naming the advocate as counsel, combined with the client's failure to deny the relationship, establishes a valid advocate-client relationship.
Advocate-Client Costs — Entitlement Where Instructions Withdrawn Before Completion
Section 53(2) of the Advocates Act allows for taxation of an advocate-client bill even when a client changes advocates before the conclusion of the business. An advocate is entitled to remuneration for the portion of work performed unless there was default, negligence, or improper delay on their part.
Advocate-Client Costs — Rebuttal of Payment Claims
A respondent's assertion that legal fees have been paid, based solely on verbal assurances from a deceased client and unsupported by documentary evidence such as receipts or bank transfers, constitutes inadmissible hearsay and fails to rebut a detailed claim of non-payment by the advocate.
Advocate-Client Costs — Service of Bill and Statutory Waiting Period
Section 57(1) of the Advocates Act requires that no suit be brought to recover costs due to an advocate until one month after a bill of costs has been delivered. Where an advocate serves a demand notice and itemised bill upon the client or the client's advocates and allows the statutory thirty-day period to lapse without payment or objection, the procedural mandate is fulfilled and the advocate may apply for leave to tax.
Advocate-Client Costs — Limitation Period
The cause of action for advocate-client costs generally accrues upon the termination of instructions. An application for leave to tax filed within six years of the withdrawal of instructions is within the limitation period for claims based on contract.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (4)

  • Ondama Samuel T/A Alaka & Co. Advocates v Kania Richard (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2018)
  • Muziransa Associated Advocates v Harriet Sanyu T/A Hamosa Catering Services (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 8 of 2017)
  • Matovu & Matovu Advocates v Damani Jyotibala & 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2021)
  • Peter Jogo Tabu & Co. Advocates v Waco Fred (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 30 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Joseph Kiryowa & Co. Advocates v Ahmed Ali Didi (Miscellaneous Cause No. 4 of 2026) [2026] UGCommC 253 (25 May 2026)
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.