Lumweno & Co. Advocates v Transafrica Assurance Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2004)

Observed later treatment

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 Court of Appeal (majority) dismissed the advocate's appeal, holding that an advocate is not entitled to the full instruction fee merely on filing pleadings; the entitlement grows as the matter proceeds and the fee may be adjusted to reflect work actually done. Applying the principle of proportionality and quantum meruit under the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations, the Court held that where a client withdraws instructions and the advocate withdraws from conduct of the case, the advocate must refund fees not earned to avoid unjust enrichment. The appellant was also estopped from claiming more, having accepted shs. 27,000,000/= as full and final settlement. Kakuru JA dissented. No order as to costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; matter remains remitted to the Registrar for reassessment of the bill of costs on the principle of proportionality

Facts

The respondent instructed the appellant firm to defend it in High Court Civil Suit No. 866 of 1998, in which the subject matter was valued at approximately shs. 4.6 billion. The appellant filed a written statement of defence and made two or three court appearances. The respondent then withdrew instructions and engaged another advocate. The appellant filed an advocate/client bill of costs of shs. 63,805,266.67. The Assistant Registrar taxed the instruction fee at shs. 47,135,950 based on the value of the subject matter. On the respondent's reference, the Principal Judge set aside the taxation, holding the taxing officer erred in treating the full instruction fee as earned on filing a defence, and remitted the matter for reassessment on the principle of proportionality. The appellant, having already been paid shs. 27,000,000 (including a conceded shs. 10,000,000), appealed. A letter of 21 November 2002 recorded the appellant requesting shs. 10,000,000 on account with the balance payable on completion of the case, which was never completed.

Issues

1. Whether an advocate is entitled to the full instruction fee on filing pleadings, or whether the subsequent progress of the matter is relevant to determining the fee.
2. Whether an advocate is required to refund a proportionate part of the instruction fee where a client withdraws instructions before the matter is concluded.
3. Whether the appellant had accepted shs. 27,000,000/= as full and final settlement of his instruction fees.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Decision and orders of the learned Principal Judge upheld.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Advocates Act (Cap 267) s.57
• Advocates Act (Cap 267) s.62(1)
• Advocates Act (Cap 267) s.48
• Advocates Act (Cap 267) s.50
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 1986, Sixth Schedule Rule 1(a)
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Regulation 3(1)
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Regulation 3(2)
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Regulation 28
• Taxation of Costs (Appeals and References) Rules Rule 3
• Evidence Act (Cap 29) s.114
• Judicature Act

Cases cited (16)

• Joreth Limited v Kigano and Associates [2002] 1 EA 92
• Mayers v. Hamilton [1975] EA 16
• Premachand Raichand Limited and another v Quarry Services of East Africa Limited and another [1972] EA 162
• Ebrahim A Kassim and 2 others v Habre International Limited Reference No. 16 of 1999
• Steel Construction Petroleum Engineering (EA) Limited v Uganda Sugar Factory [1970] EA 141
• Patrick Makumbi and another v. Solar Electrics Uganda Ltd
• Lion Assurance Company Ltd v Kasekende Kyeyune and Lutaaya Advocates (Miscellaneous Application No. 358 of 2013)
• De Bernardy v Harding (1853) 8 Exch. 822
• Planche v Colburn (1831) 8 Bing. 14
• Prickett v Badger (1856) 1 CB (NS) 296
• Slowey v Lodder [1904] AC 442
• Ellingsen v Det Skandinaviske Compani [1919] 2 K.B. 567
• Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna versus Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32
• Nokes vs. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries [1940] AC 1014
• Mattison versus Hart [1854] 23 LJ CP 108
• Vickers versus Evans [1910] AC at P.444

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Uganda Telecom Limited v Ondoma (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0012 OF 2018)

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