Wakilii

Kakeeto t a Adil Advocates and Solicitors v Ssempebwa (Misc Cause 104 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 207 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file and tax advocate-client bill of costs under section 57 of the Advocates Act
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

An advocate seeking leave to file and tax an advocate-client bill of costs must prove on a balance of probabilities that an advocate-client relationship existed through express or implied instructions, that services were rendered, that a signed bill was served, and that 30 days elapsed without payment. Where the applicant deponed contradictory affidavits stating first that he was instructed to institute a suit and later that he defended a suit, and failed to attach pleadings proving his representation, he failed to establish the existence of an advocate-client relationship. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant advocate sought leave to file and tax an advocate-client bill of costs, claiming the respondent instructed him to institute a suit for breach of contract for sale of land worth UGX 350,000,000 and that he filed HCCS No. 465 of 2020 and Misc. Application No. 846 of 2020. The respondent denied ever instructing the applicant, stating he was the defendant in HCCS No. 465 of 2020 and was represented by M/s Okello Oryem & Co. Advocates who filed his written statement of defence on 13 August 2020. In rejoinder, the applicant contradicted his initial position, stating he defended HCCS No. 465 of 2020 rather than instituted it. The applicant did not attach pleadings to prove his representation. Court records showed M/s Okello Oryem & Co. Advocates filed the defence in HCCS No. 465 of 2020 and M/s Balikuddembe & Co. Advocates filed Misc. Application 846 of 2020.

Issues

  1. Whether this application meets the legal requirements for the grant of leave to tax the advocate-client bill of costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the respondent

Rules and key headnotes

Advocate-Client Costs — Requirements for Leave to Tax
An applicant seeking leave to file and tax an advocate-client bill of costs must satisfy the court on a balance of probabilities that there existed an advocate-client relationship by way of express or implied instructions, that services were rendered, that a signed bill of costs was served on the client, and that a period of 30 days has lapsed without the advocate and client agreeing to or paying the suggested amount.
Advocate-Client Relationship — Proof of Instructions
The existence of an advocate-client relationship is premised on the issuance of instructions from a client, which can be either through an agreement or implied through a client's acquiescence to the advocate's representation. An advocate who wishes the court to allow him to file and tax an advocate-client bill of costs must be certain about the instructions he received from his client for which he can demand payment.
Advocate-Client Costs — Effect of Contradictory Affidavits
Where an applicant advocate depones two affidavits with contradictory information, stating in one that instructions were to file a suit and in another that instructions were to defend a suit, and appears uncertain of the instructions received, the court will not grant leave to file and tax an advocate-client bill of costs.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (2)

  • Ondoma Sammuel T/A Alaka & Co. Advocates v Kana Richard (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 16 of 2018)
  • 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.

Kakeeto_t_a_Adil_Advocates_and_Solicitors_v_Ssempebwa_(Misc_Cause_104_of_2022)_[2023]_UGHCLD_207_(14_July_2023)
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.