Libra Advocates v CIC General Insurance (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Cause No. 120 of 2024)
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 High Court granted leave to Libra Advocates to tax its advocate-client bill of costs against CIC General Insurance (Uganda) Limited. The court held that the application satisfied the preconditions under Section 63 of the Advocates Act, including proper service of the bill and expiry of the one-month period. The court found that an advocate-client relationship existed based on email correspondence evidencing instructions from the respondent. The court rejected the respondent's arguments that the applicant mishandled the matter or acted without instructions, holding that when counsel has general instructions to represent a client, they possess authority to take necessary steps to manage the matter effectively.
Outcome
Application granted; matter referred to Taxing Officer for taxation of advocate-client bill of costs
Facts
Libra Advocates provided legal services to CIC General Insurance (Uganda) Limited in relation to disputes involving the Agriculture Insurance Consortium at the Insurance Regulatory Authority. The services included filing a complaint before the IRA Complaints Bureau, attending hearings, preparing appeal documents for the Insurance Appeals Tribunal after the respondent was suspended by the IRA, and providing legal opinions. The respondent did not pay for the services rendered. On 8 October 2024, Libra Advocates served an itemised advocate-client bill of costs on the respondent, which the respondent acknowledged but did not pay. The respondent contended that Libra Advocates was not instructed to apply for default judgment, that the respondent's legal department took over the matter after the application was dismissed, and that CR Amanya Advocates subsequently handled the matter. The respondent offered UGX 30,000,000 for partial work done, which Libra Advocates rejected.
Issues
- Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to have the advocate-client bill of costs taxed.
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- Leave is hereby granted to the Applicant to file and have its advocate-client bill of costs taxed in accordance with section 63(5) of the Advocates Act.
- The advocate-client bill of costs dated 8th October 2024 shall be placed before the Taxing Officer of this Court for taxation.
- The Applicant is awarded costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Advocates Act Cap 295 s.63
- Advocates Act Cap 295 s.63(1)
- Advocates Act Cap 295 s.63(2)
- Advocates Act Cap 295 s.63(5)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 3
- Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations Regulation 2(1)
Cases cited (3)
- Eunice Busingye, Reeve Advocates v Geresome Tabula Matovu (Miscellaneous Cause No. 50 of 2023)
- Matovu & Matovu Advocates v Damani Jyotibala, Hema Damani & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2021)
- Lenina Kemigisha Mbabazi & Star Fish Limited v Jing Cheng International Trading Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0344 of 2012)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.