Wakilii

Kimenyi Thadeo v Hannah Kizza Kyeyune and Another (Civil Suit 2302 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 51 · 2026 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections raised in a miscellaneous application seeking consolidation of two civil suits
Decision
Preliminary objection on conflict of interest dismissed; cross-examination of Applicant allowed

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 a prior limited engagement by an advocate, such as drafting a single document relating to the suit land, does not without more establish a substantial advocate-client relationship capable of giving rise to a strong presumption of conflict of interest sufficient to disqualify the advocate from representing an opposing party. The objection alleging conflict of interest was dismissed. Cross-examination of the Applicant on his affidavit was allowed as the facts deponed to required interrogation to determine the need for consolidation.

Outcome

Preliminary objection on conflict of interest dismissed; cross-examination of Applicant allowed

Facts

The Applicant brought a miscellaneous application seeking consolidation of Civil Suit No. 0520 of 2025 with HCCS No. 0550 of 2024, both relating to the estate of the late John William Kyeyune. Before the consolidation application could be determined, the Applicant raised two preliminary objections: that the law firm M/s Luzige, Lubega, Kavuma & Co. Advocates was conflicted from representing the 1st Respondent because it had previously represented the Applicant in transactions relating to the suit land, and that Counsel Luzige Joseph could not cross-examine the Applicant due to this conflict. The Applicant alleged he had paid UGX 2,500,000 as legal fees to the firm. The record showed that the firm had drafted a Land Lease Agreement relating to the suit land. The 1st Respondent denied any advocate-client relationship and argued that the conflict allegation was intended to delay proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the law firm of M/s Luzige, Lubega, Kavuma & Co. Advocates is conflicted from representing the 1st Respondent.
  2. Whether Counsel Luzige Joseph can cross-examine the Applicant.

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

Conflict of Interest — Disqualification of Counsel — Prior Limited Engagement
The fact that an advocate has once served a client does not preclude the advocate from using generally known information about that client when later representing another client. A conflict of interest exists only if there is a significant risk that the advocate's ability to consider or carry out an appropriate course of action will be materially limited by other responsibilities or interests. A single or limited transaction, such as drafting a document, may give rise to an advocate-client relationship but does not, without more, establish a substantial or continuing engagement capable of giving rise to a strong presumption of conflict.
Conflict of Interest — Burden of Proof — Documentary Evidence
The burden of proving an alleged conflict of interest lies on the party alleging it. Where a party alleges payment of legal fees to establish an advocate-client relationship, documentary evidence must be adduced to substantiate the claim. Mere allegation without supporting evidence is insufficient to establish conflict of interest warranting disqualification of counsel.
Conflict of Interest — Disqualification of Counsel — Serious Remedy
Disqualification of counsel on grounds of conflict of interest is a serious remedy which should not be granted lightly. While proof of specific confidential information is not always necessary and a presumption may arise from a prior advocate-client relationship in a related matter, such presumption depends on the nature and extent of that relationship. The more substantial the relationship, the stronger the presumption.
Cross-Examination — Discretion of Court — Affidavit Evidence
Under Order 19 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may order the attendance of a deponent for cross-examination where it appears necessary for determining the issues raised. The power to allow cross-examination is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously depending on the circumstances of each case. Where an affidavit contains factual assertions relating to the circumstances of suits and the conduct of parties, the opposing party is entitled to test those assertions through cross-examination.
Professional Conduct of Advocates — Regulation 9 — Advocate as Witness
Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations applies to individual advocates as witnesses and not to the firm as a whole. Only a natural person, and not a law firm, can be a witness. The regulation addresses the incompatibility of an advocate acting as both counsel and witness in the same matter, rather than issues of conflict of interest. The entire partnership cannot be excluded on the basis of Regulation 9.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Sudhir Ruperaria v MMAKS Advocates (Miscellaneous Application No. 1063 of 2017)
  • Muwanga Daniel v Sun Huawen (HCMA No. 129 of 2019)
  • Henry Kaziro Lwandasa v Kyas Global Trading Co. Ltd (HCMA 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 (HCMA No. 0196 of 2020)
  • Lt. Gen. (Rtd) Henry Tumukunde v Attorney General and Another (HCMA 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_(Civil_Suit_2302_of_2025)_[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.