Wakilii

Libra Advocates v Britania Allied Industries Limited [2026] UGHC 680

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion under the Advocates Act for leave to have an advocate-client bill of costs taxed
Decision
Leave granted to tax the advocate-client bill of costs; bill referred to the Taxing Officer

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 granted an advocate leave to have its advocate-client bill of costs taxed. The preconditions in section 63(2) of the Advocates Act were satisfied because a signed bill was delivered to the client by email and receipt was not disputed, and the client had not required taxation within the one month allowed by section 64(1), so section 64(5) permitted the Court to order taxation. Payments proved by the client related to earlier stay-of-execution applications, not the appeal. Advocate-client costs are recoverable from the client under regulation 38, not from the party condemned to pay party-party costs, and the rule requiring a former advocate's bill to be annexed as a disbursement applies only to party-party bills. Quantum objections are for the taxing officer.

Outcome

Leave granted to tax the advocate-client bill of costs; bill referred to the Taxing Officer

Facts

On 6 June 2023 the respondent company instructed the applicant law firm, by email, to file an appeal against a decision of the Tax Appeals Tribunal and to obtain orders restraining the Uganda Revenue Authority from enforcing that decision. The applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2023 and successfully obtained interim stay and stay of execution orders in Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 848 and 849 of 2023, and later filed written submissions in the appeal. The respondent paid invoices of UGX 11,800,000 as professional fees and UGX 1,000,000 as disbursements; a receipt confirmed the larger sum was for obtaining the stay of execution order. On 14 October 2025 the applicant issued a tax invoice for UGX 141,600,000 as professional fees for lodging and prosecuting the appeal. The respondent withdrew instructions on 20 October 2025 and engaged another firm. On 29 October 2025 the applicant served a signed advocate-client bill of costs by email; the respondent neither paid nor required taxation within one month. Judgment in the appeal was delivered and URA was condemned to pay the costs of the appeal, with no order that those costs be taxed as between advocate and client.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant advocates were entitled to leave to file their advocate-client bill of costs for taxation.
  2. Whether the preconditions in section 63 of the Advocates Act as to signature and delivery of the bill were satisfied.
  3. Whether instructions to perform the work for which fees were claimed had been given and whether the fees had already been paid.
  4. Whether the applicant should instead recover its fees from the party condemned to pay costs in the appeal, or annex its bill as a disbursement in an omnibus party-party bill of costs.
  5. What remedies were available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to have its Advocate-Client bill of costs arising from Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2023 taxed.
  • The Taxing Officer/Registrar shall tax the bill of costs, determining the nature and extent of the work done and the fairness and reasonableness of the amounts claimed.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Advocates' Costs — Leave to Tax Advocate-Client Bill under Advocates Act s.64(5)
Where a client chargeable with an advocate's bill does not, within one month of its delivery, give notice requiring the taxing officer to fix a date for taxation, the Court may on the advocate's application order that the bill be taxed.
Civil Procedure — Advocates' Costs — Preconditions to Taxation — Signature and Delivery of Bill
Before ordering taxation of an advocate-client bill the Court must be satisfied that the bill was signed by the advocate or a partner of the firm and delivered to the party to be charged; service of a signed bill by email which the client does not dispute receiving satisfies the delivery requirement.
Civil Procedure — Advocates' Costs — Advocate-Client Costs Recoverable from Client, Not from Party Condemned in Costs
Costs awarded by a court are taxed and paid as between party and party unless the Court expressly orders them to be taxed as between advocate and client; an advocate's advocate-client fees are therefore recoverable from the client and not from the third party condemned to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Advocates' Costs — Omnibus Bill — Annexing Former Advocate's Bill as Disbursement
The requirement that a former advocate's costs be included as a disbursement in a single omnibus bill of costs applies only to party-party bills of costs and has no application to an advocate-client bill; a successor advocate cannot benefit from work he or she did not perform.
Civil Procedure — Advocates' Costs — Objections to Quantum Reserved for the Taxing Officer
Objections that the fees claimed are excessive or disproportionate are not grounds for refusing leave to tax; where there is no written fee agreement, the taxing officer has full authority to examine the nature and extent of the work done and determine what costs were reasonably incurred and are recoverable.
Civil Procedure — Advocates' Costs — Burden of Proving Payment of Professional Fees
A client alleging that the advocate's professional fees have already been paid bears the burden of proving payment referable to the work claimed in the bill; proof of payment for distinct interlocutory applications does not discharge fees claimed for prosecuting the substantive appeal.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (11)

  • Eunice Busingye and Another v Geresome Tabula Matovu (Miscellaneous Cause No. 50 of 2023)
  • Balwantrai D. Bhatt Vs Ajeet Singh & Another [1962] EA 103
  • Haji Harjina Mulangwa v Shariff Osman (Civil Reference No. 3 of 2004)
  • M/s Tumusiime, Kabega & Co. Advocates v Wills International Engineers & Contractors Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 165 of 2025)
  • Ondoma Samuel t/a Alaka and Company Advocates v Kana Richard (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2018)
  • Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
  • Byenkya, Kihika & Co. Advocates v Gandesha (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2014)
  • Afriland First Bank (U) Limited v Joseph Luzige and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2022)
  • Peter Jogo Tabu & Co. Advocates v Waco Fred (Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 2019)
  • Administrator General v Jovia Kyomugisha and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 201 of 2022)
  • Lawrence Tumwesigye & Co. Advocates v Hirra Traders (U) Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 57 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Libra Advocates v Britania Allied Industries Limited [2026] UGHC 680 (16 June 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.