Wakilii

Kizito v Kampala Financial Services Ltd & 3 Ors (Civil Suit No. 30 of 2016)

High Court · [2019] UGHCLD 7 · 2019 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection raised at scheduling stage challenging counsel's right to appear
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed with costs; matter to proceed to conferencing

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 6 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 6 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 6 citing cases on record, 6 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 held that an advocate who witnessed a mortgage deed but never represented the objecting parties and is not listed as a witness cannot be disqualified under Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations. Regulation 9 prevents an advocate from appearing where he has reason to believe he will be required as a witness, but the regulation does not apply where the advocate is not listed as a witness and no leave has been sought to call him. The mere act of witnessing a document without establishing a fiduciary relationship or obtaining confidential information is insufficient for disqualification.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed with costs; matter to proceed to conferencing

Facts

The plaintiff sued four defendants in a land matter involving a mortgage deed. At the scheduling stage, counsel for the plaintiff and the 4th defendant raised a preliminary objection that counsel Tibaijuka, representing the 1st and 2nd defendants, should be disqualified because he had witnessed the mortgage deed that was central to the dispute. The 4th defendant's pleadings mentioned that she had taken money to counsel Tibaijuka's chambers, which he initially received but then returned after consulting the 2nd defendant, stating that the suit land had already been sold. The objectors argued that under Regulation 9 of the Advocates Conduct Regulations, counsel Tibaijuka would be required to give evidence and therefore could not continue as counsel. Counsel Tibaijuka was not listed as a witness in any party's list of witnesses.

Issues

  1. Whether Counsel Tibaijuka should be disqualified from representing the 1st and 2nd Defendants on the ground that he witnessed the mortgage deed and may be required as a witness.
  2. Whether Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations requires disqualification where an advocate witnessed a document but did not act for the objecting party and is not listed as a witness.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Case fixed for conferencing on 26th August 2019 at 11:00 am.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocates — Disqualification — Regulation 9 of Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations — Witnessing Documents
An advocate who witnessed a document but never represented the objecting party and did not establish a fiduciary relationship or obtain confidential information cannot be disqualified under Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 on the ground that he may be required as a witness.
Advocates — Disqualification — Requirement to List Witnesses
Under Order 6 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a person required as a witness must be listed as a witness in the pleadings. Where an advocate is not listed as a witness and no leave of court has been sought to call him as a witness, it cannot be concluded that the advocate will be required to appear as a witness for purposes of disqualification under Regulation 9.
Advocates — Disqualification — Scheduling Memorandum — Status
A scheduling memorandum is a mere proposal by a party which is subject to agreement or disagreement by all parties to the suit. The inclusion of an advocate's name in a scheduling memorandum does not constitute listing him as a witness for purposes of triggering disqualification under Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations.
Advocates — Disqualification — Choice Between Role as Advocate or Witness
Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations requires an advocate to choose between being counsel or being a witness, but not both. Where the advocate has chosen to act as counsel and has not been listed as a witness, the regulation does not require disqualification.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Regulation 9
  • Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Regulation 4
  • Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Regulation 10
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 2

Cases cited (3)

  • Keshwala v Musoke (Miscellaneous Application No. 501 of 2013)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Kasirye, Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1994)
  • Lwandasa v Kyas Global Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 865 of 2014)

Cases citing this judgment (6)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kizito_v_Kampala_Financial_Services_Ltd_&_3_Ors_(Civil_Suit_No._30_of_2016)_[2019]_UGHCLD_7_(14_March_2019)
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.