Wakilii

Karungi & Partners Advocates and Solicitors v Nadya Dimitrova Mileva (Misc. Application No. 0710 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 78 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for taxation of advocate-client bill of costs arising from High Court Civil Suit 867 of 2022
Decision
Leave granted for taxation of advocate-client bill limited to mediation services; preliminary objection dismissed; stay of settlement payment refused

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

Held that an advocate-client relationship can be implied from conduct where parties agree on scope and fees, make payments, and the advocate performs services, even without a signed written contract. The one-month notice requirement under Advocates Act s.63 may be waived where there is probable cause to believe the client intends to leave the jurisdiction. An advocate who is discharged before trial completion is entitled to taxation of costs for services rendered in mediation proceedings not contemplated in the original retainer, but not for services covered by the agreed fees already paid.

Outcome

Leave granted for taxation of advocate-client bill limited to mediation services; preliminary objection dismissed; stay of settlement payment refused

Facts

The Respondent instructed the Applicant law firm in May 2024 to take over conduct of a civil suit against KCB Bank arising from unauthorised withdrawals totalling UGX 121,025,185. The parties discussed fees of UGX 7,000,000 for the civil suit, UGX 5,000,000 for a possible second suit, and UGX 3,000,000 for disbursements. A draft contract of engagement and fee note were prepared but never signed. The Respondent paid UGX 9,000,000 in instalments. The Applicant filed a notice of change of advocate and took over conduct of mediation proceedings arising from the civil suit. Negotiations led to a proposed settlement of UGX 150,000,000. The Applicant prepared a draft consent judgment allocating UGX 120,000,000 as principal and UGX 30,000,000 as legal costs, payable to the Applicant's bank account. The Respondent objected, terminated the Applicant's instructions in April 2025, and instructed new counsel. The Applicant then filed this application seeking taxation of an advocate-client bill of UGX 44,856,622.20 and a stay of settlement payment. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application contravened Advocates Act s.63 by failing to deliver the bill one month before commencing proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application contravenes the law and should be struck out?
  2. Whether a valid and enforceable agreement can be inferred between the Respondent and the Applicant law firm despite the absence of a signed written agreement?
  3. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to tax the advocate-client bill of costs?
  4. Whether the Applicant is liable to account for the monies received?
  5. Whether a stay of payment of any monies arising from the alleged consent judgement in Mediation Cause No. 83 should be granted?

Orders

  • Leave is hereby granted for the taxation of the Applicant's Advocate-Client bill of costs as relates to services rendered in respect of Mediation Cause No. 85/23 Nadya Dimitrova Mileva Versus KCB Bank Ltd from 21st May 2024 the date of the notice of change of advocate to 1st April 2025 when Applicant was discharged from the services.
  • Each party bears its own costs of this application.
  • Application for stay of payment of monies arising from settlement dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocates Act — Section 63 — One-Month Notice Requirement — Exception for Probable Cause
An advocate seeking to recover legal fees must ordinarily deliver a bill of costs to the client and wait one month before commencing legal proceedings, but where there is probable cause to believe the client is about to leave Uganda or take actions that would prevent or delay payment, the court may permit the advocate to commence proceedings before the one-month period elapses.
Advocates Act — Probable Cause — Objective Test
Probable cause under Advocates Act s.63(1) is judged on an objective test and requires sufficient evidence or grounds to support a belief that an ordinary person, using common sense and judgment, would likely arrive at the same conclusion based on the same information; corroborative evidence that a client intends to leave Uganda constitutes probable cause justifying waiver of the one-month notice period.
Advocate-Client Relationship — Implied Retainer — Formation by Conduct
An advocate-client relationship is contractual and may be established by mutual agreement manifested in express words or conduct; where parties discuss and agree on scope of instructions and fees, the client makes payments, and the advocate performs services including filing court documents and attending proceedings, an implied retainer arises even in the absence of a signed written contract.
Advocate-Client Relationship — Implied Retainer — Imputation of Intention
An implied retainer can only arise where on an objective consideration of all the circumstances, an intention to enter into a contractual relationship ought fairly and properly to be imputed to the parties; imputation involves concluding what the parties would have intended based on their conduct, rather than what they did intend.
Advocates Act — Taxation of Costs — Services Beyond Original Retainer
Where an advocate is engaged under an implied retainer fixing fees for specified matters and the client pays those fees, the advocate is not entitled to present a bill for taxation for services rendered in those matters; however, services rendered in separate proceedings not contemplated in the original retainer, such as mediation proceedings commenced after the retainer, constitute a separate assignment and may be taxed.
Advocates Act — Duty to Account — Reasonableness of Fees
An advocate is not required to render an account for monies received from a client unless the fees involve fraud, charges for unnecessary tasks, or deliberate failure to perform services for which a fee is charged; the reasonableness of an advocate's fee is judged at the time the client agrees to it, not in hindsight, and where fees paid were reasonable and services were performed, no accounting is required.
Stay of Execution — Settlement Proceeds — Unpaid Legal Fees
An unpaid advocate cannot hold a client at ransom or deprive a client from settlement proceeds due to pending legal fees; once a consent judgment is entered it becomes the property of the holder, and the advocate's remedy lies in filing an advocate-client bill of costs for taxation, not in seeking a stay of payment of settlement monies.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (8)

  • Mundua Richard v Central Nile Transporters Association (Miscellaneous Civil Revision No. 0003 of 2017)
  • Peter Jogo Tabu & Co. Advocates v Waco Fred (HCMA No. 30 of 2009)
  • Dr. Willy Kaberuka v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 160 of 1993)
  • James Draper Vs United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959)
  • Matovu & Matovu Advocates v Damani Jyotibala & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0029 of 2021)
  • Dean v. Allin & Watts [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 249
  • Byenkya Kihika & Co. Advocates v Fang Min (Miscellaneous Cause No. 52 of 2022)
  • re Levinson, 197 App. Div. 46, 188 N.Y. Supp. 730

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Karungi & Partners Advocates and Solicitors v Nadya Dimitrova Mileva (Misc. Application No. 0710 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 78 (29 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.