Wakilii

Kateera Justinian Muhwezi v Satibet [Uganda] Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 947 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 228 · 2025 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to legal representation in an application for temporary injunction arising from a civil suit challenging removal of director
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed with M/s Kateera & Co. Advocates representing the applicant

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 overruled the preliminary objection to legal representation. Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations prohibits an advocate retained in a client's case from being a witness in that same case, but does not prevent an advocate-litigant from testifying in their own case while being represented by their own law firm. The regulation applies to individuals, not firms. Where a fiduciary relationship exists, only the beneficiary can allege breach; a third party cannot sustain a claim of conflict of interest based on alleged breach of fiduciary duties owed to another party.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed with M/s Kateera & Co. Advocates representing the applicant

Facts

The applicant, a legal practitioner and former director of the 1st respondent company, filed a civil suit challenging his removal as director. He sought a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from taking corporate actions pending determination of the main suit. The applicant retained M/s Kateera & Co. Advocates, a law firm of which he is a partner and proprietor, to represent him. When the application came up for hearing, the 5th respondent raised a preliminary objection contending that the legal representation constituted a conflict of interest because the applicant's dual role as both party and partner in the representing firm created a situation where counsel would become a witness. The 5th respondent sought disqualification of M/s Kateera & Co. Advocates on grounds of professional impropriety and conflict of interest under Regulations 9 and 10 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations.

Issues

  1. Whether M/s Kateera and Co. Advocates are potential witnesses in the head suit?
  2. Whether an advocate-client relationship exists or existed between M/s Kateera and Co. Advocates and the 1st respondent, and if so, whether M/s Kateera and Co. Advocates are in breach of that relationship?
  3. What are the reliefs available to the 5th respondent?

Orders

  • Preliminary objection by the 5th Respondent overruled.
  • M/s Kateera & Co. Advocates not disqualified from representing the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legal Representation — Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations — Regulation 9 — Advocate as Witness — Scope of Application
Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations prohibits an advocate who has been retained in a client's case from acting as a witness in that same case, but does not categorically prohibit advocates from self-representation or from testifying as witnesses in their own cases. The regulation applies to individuals, not to law firms as a whole, and therefore an entire partnership cannot be excluded on the basis of one advocate being a witness.
Legal Representation — Right to Be Heard — Advocate-Litigant — Self-Representation
The right to be heard as guaranteed by Article 28 of the Constitution is not limited by the status or profession of an individual. An advocate who is a litigant has the right to represent themselves and may do so from the bar. When giving testimony, the advocate may remove their robes and take the witness stand as a witness. The rationale for Regulation 9 is to clearly delineate the boundary between testimony and advocacy, not to prevent self-representation.
Legal Representation — Conflict of Interest — Advocate-Litigant Represented by Own Firm
An advocate-litigant is not precluded from being represented by a law firm in which they are a partner, provided that the counsel representing them is not called as a witness. The role of a witness in this context is personal and does not necessarily create a conflict that would implicate the entire firm. The advocate-litigant may testify as a witness in their own case regardless of whether they represent themselves or retain their own firm as counsel.
Fiduciary Duty — Advocate-Client Relationship — Breach by Third Party
A fiduciary relationship binds only two parties: the fiduciary and the beneficiary. Fiduciary duties are owed exclusively to the beneficiary. Where the beneficiary does not allege any breach, a third party cannot predicate a claim on an alleged breach of fiduciary duties. A third party, not privy to the fiduciary relationship, cannot assert a claim based on an alleged breach of fiduciary duty where the beneficiary does not complain.
Fiduciary Duty — Conflict of Interest — Test for Establishing Fiduciary Relationship
Fiduciary duties arise when a person or entity exercises discretionary power for the benefit of another under circumstances that engender a relationship of trust and confidence. In cases involving advocate-client relationships, a fiduciary duty may arise where law firms have represented and acted on behalf of a particular client, where a director holds sole authority to select or dismiss law firms, or where there is clear evidence of the firm's significant involvement in drafting contentious and non-contentious documents for the client. Concrete evidence is required to establish the existence of a fiduciary relationship.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Uganda Development Bank v Kasirye, Byaruhanga and Company Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1994)
  • Henry Kaziro Lwandasa v Kyas Global Trading Co. Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 865 of 2014)
  • Uganda v Bob Kasango and Others (Criminal Case (ACD) No. 0003 of 2016)
  • Uganda v Patricia Ojangole (Criminal Case No. 1 of 2014)
  • Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1996] EWCA Civ 533
  • Sudhir Ruparelia v MMAKS Advocates and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 1663 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kateera Justinian Muhwezi v Satibet [Uganda] Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 947 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 228 (22 July 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.