Kituuma Magala & Co. Advocates v Celtel (U) Ltd [2011] UGSC 21

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that an appeal from a taxing officer of the High Court to a High Court judge is not an appeal in the judicial sense under section 6(2) of the Judicature Act but the exercise of "other jurisdiction"; the matter was therefore a competent second appeal needing no certificate of importance. On the merits, the debt collection agreement and accompanying letters failed to comply with section 51 of the Advocates Act and were illegal and unenforceable. The remuneration provisions could not be severed to let the advocate recover fees under the Advocates Remuneration Rules he had not opted for, as that would be contrary to public policy. The appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court upheld.

Facts

The appellant, a law firm, signed a Debt Collection Agreement with the respondent to recover debts owed to it, with remuneration terms stipulated in the agreement. In respect of some debtors the appellant filed civil suits in the High Court to recover the money. The agreement was terminated before any recoveries had been made under those suits. The appellant filed a client-advocate bill of costs for taxation. The taxing officer rejected it on the ground that the matter was governed by the debt collection agreement and not by the ordinary rules regulating advocates' remuneration. The agreement, and two later letters relied on by the appellant as separate instructions to sue, did not comply with section 51 of the Advocates Act. The appellant had also received payment of commission as stipulated in the agreement. Appeals to the High Court and the Court of Appeal were dismissed.

Issues

1. Whether an appeal to a judge of the High Court against a taxing officer's decision is an appeal within section 6(2) of the Judicature Act requiring a certificate of importance, such that the appeal to the Supreme Court was an incompetent third appeal.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant's debt collection agreement was illegal and unenforceable for non-compliance with the Advocates Act.
3. Whether the remuneration provisions of the agreement could be severed so as to allow the appellant to recover fees under the Advocates Remuneration Rules.

Orders

• Preliminary objection rejected.
• Appeal dismissed with costs in this Court and in the Courts below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (15)

• Judicature Act s.6(2)
• Advocates Act s.48
• Advocates Act s.50
• Advocates Act s.51
• Advocates Act s.51(1)(b)
• Advocates Act s.51(1)(c)
• Advocates Act s.51(2)
• Advocates Act s.62(1)
• Constitution of Uganda art.43
• Constitution of Uganda art.133
• Constitution of Uganda art.139
• Supreme Court Rules r.39
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XLVIII Rule 7
• Civil Procedure Rules Order L Rule 8
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules

Cases cited (8)

• Namuddu v Uganda (2004) 2 EA 207
• J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals v Glaxo Group Ltd (2007) 2 EA 191
• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
• Mansukhlal Karia & Another v Attorney General & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
• MARIES -Vs- PHILIP TRANT & SONS LTD MACKNNON, THIRD PARTY IQB 29
• Pandit v Sekatawa [1964] EA 491
• Saroj Gandesha v Transload Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2009)
• Anderson v Daniel [1924] 1 KB

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