Wakilii

Kimenyi Thadeo v Hannah Kizza Kyeyune and Another [2026] UGHCLD 51

High Court · 2026 Preliminary Objections Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections raised in an interlocutory application for consolidation of two civil suits
Decision
Preliminary objections overruled; counsel for the 1st Respondent permitted to continue acting and to cross-examine the Applicant; the consolidation application to proceed to determination

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

Both preliminary objections failed. On conflict of interest, the burden lies on the party alleging it; disqualification of counsel is a serious remedy not granted lightly. Although a presumption of possession of confidential information may arise from a prior advocate–client relationship, its strength depends on the substantiality of that relationship. A single or limited prior transaction (here, drafting a lease agreement, with no proof of fees paid) did not establish a substantial engagement, and the presumption was rebutted. On cross-examination, although the court lifted its earlier unopposed directive to hear the objection, the affidavit contained factual assertions on the circumstances of both suits which the opposing party was entitled to test, so cross-examination was allowed.

Outcome

Preliminary objections overruled; counsel for the 1st Respondent permitted to continue acting and to cross-examine the Applicant; the consolidation application to proceed to determination

Facts

The Applicant sued the 1st Respondent and others in Civil Suit No. 0520 of 2025 and applied to consolidate that suit with HCCS No. 0550 of 2024, in which the 1st Respondent sued the 2nd Respondent and others as an administrator and beneficiary of the estate of the late John William Kyeyune. Before the consolidation application was determined, counsel for the Applicant raised two preliminary objections. First, that M/s Luzige, Lubega, Kavuma & Co. Advocates, then acting for the 1st Respondent, had previously acted for the Applicant in transactions concerning the suit land and been paid UGX 2,500,000 in legal fees, so held confidential information prejudicial to him. No documentary proof of payment was produced, but the record showed the firm had drafted the Land Lease Agreement (Annexure "F") relating to the suit land. A Mr. Musinguzi said to have participated in that transaction was an employee, not a partner, of the firm and was not involved in the present matter. Secondly, that Counsel Luzige should not cross-examine the Applicant. The court had earlier permitted cross-examination when holding-brief counsel raised no objection.

Issues

  1. Whether the law firm of M/s Luzige, Lubega, Kavuma & Co. Advocates was disqualified by conflict of interest from representing the 1st Respondent, having previously drafted a lease agreement relating to the suit land for the Applicant.
  2. Whether Counsel Luzige Joseph should be barred from cross-examining the Applicant on his affidavit in support of the consolidation application.

Orders

  • The objection alleging conflict of interest against Mr. Luzige of M/s Luzige, Lubega, Kavuma & Co. Advocates is dismissed.
  • Counsel for the 1st Respondent reserves the right to cross-examine the Applicant on his affidavit if he still so desires.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Disqualification of Counsel for Conflict of Interest — Burden of Proof
The burden of proving an alleged conflict of interest rests on the party seeking disqualification of opposing counsel, and disqualification is a serious remedy that should not be granted lightly.
Civil Procedure — Advocate–Client Relationship — Presumption of Confidential Information — Substantiality of Prior Engagement
A presumption that an advocate possesses confidential information may arise from a prior advocate–client relationship without proof of specific information, but the strength of that presumption depends on the nature and extent of the relationship; a single or limited prior transaction does not, without more, establish a substantial or continuing engagement capable of raising a strong presumption of conflict.
Civil Procedure — Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations reg.9 — Advocate as Witness — Firm Not Disqualified as a Whole
Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations addresses the incompatibility of an advocate acting as both counsel and witness in the same matter rather than conflict of interest, and applies to individual advocates; an entire law firm cannot be excluded under it because only a natural person can be a witness.
Civil Procedure — Conflict of Interest — Prior Service to a Party — Effect of Related Pending Application
The mere fact that an advocate previously rendered legal services to a party, or that a separate application has been filed against the advocate's firm arising from the same dispute, does not by itself establish a conflict of interest warranting disqualification in the present proceedings.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Cross-examination of Deponent under O.19 r.2 CPR — Discretion of Court
Under Order 19 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules the court may order a deponent to attend for cross-examination where necessary to determine the issues raised, and the discretion is exercised judicially having regard to the importance of the issue, whether cross-examination will unduly delay expeditious disposal, and whether it will elucidate the issues in controversy.
Evidence — Affidavit Containing Factual Assertions — Right of Opposing Party to Test by Cross-examination
Where an affidavit in support of an interlocutory application contains factual assertions on the circumstances of the suits, the subject matter of the dispute and the conduct of the parties, the opposing party is entitled to test those assertions by cross-examination, notwithstanding a claim that the deponent's knowledge derives from legal advice.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Directions — Power of Court to Lift Its Own Earlier Directive — Functus Officio
A court is not functus officio in respect of an interlocutory direction permitting cross-examination given when only holding-brief counsel was present and no objection was raised; the court may lift that directive and hear an objection subsequently raised by principal counsel where sufficient cause is shown.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Sudhir Ruparelia v MMAKS Advocates (Miscellaneous Application No. 1063 of 2017)
  • Muwanga Daniel v Sun Huawen (Miscellaneous Application No. 129 of 2019)
  • Henry Kaziro Lwandasa v Kyas Global Trading Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 865 of 2014)
  • Anthony Mutyaba Katamba v S & L Advocates and MTN (Uganda) Limited (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 169 of 2023)
  • Uganda v Ojangole (Criminal Case No. 1 of 2014)
  • Tesfalidet Ghebrat v Marlin Advocates and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 0196 of 2020)
  • Lt. Gen. (Rtd) Henry Tumukunde v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 489 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kimenyi Thadeo v Hannah Kizza Kyeyune and Another [2026] UGHCLD 51 (18 March 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.