M/S Actum Advocates v Bbale Fred Junior (Miscellaneous Application No.491 of 2023)

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 High Court dismissed an application by advocates seeking leave to file and tax an advocate-client bill of costs. The court held that while the applicant had been duly instructed to file the underlying civil suit, the application failed because the advocates did not comply with Section 63(1) of the Advocates Act: the demand letter sent to the respondent did not enclose an itemised bill of costs as required, and the bill was not delivered in the form prescribed by Regulation 47 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.

Outcome

Application dismissed for non-compliance with statutory requirements for delivery of bill of costs

Facts

The applicant law firm claimed it had been instructed by the respondent in October 2020 to file a suit against three individuals over a land dispute. The parties allegedly agreed that the respondent would pay UGX 10,000,000 in legal fees plus disbursements. The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 234 of 2020 at Mukono High Court. The respondent subsequently settled the matter directly with the defendants and paid the applicant only UGX 3,700,000. The applicant demanded UGX 80,000,000 in legal fees and sought leave to file and tax an advocate-client bill of costs. The respondent denied instructing the applicant to file the suit, claiming he had only retained the firm to draft and serve a notice of intention to sue for UGX 3,700,000, and that the applicant filed the suit on its own volition. The respondent argued that the demand letter did not enclose an itemised bill of costs as required by statute.

Issues

1. Whether the Applicant had instructions in filing Civil Suit No. 234 of 2020.
2. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to file and tax an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (12)

• Advocates Act Cap. 267 s.57(2)
• Advocates Act Cap. 267 s.63(1)
• Advocates Act Cap. 267 s.63(2)
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules 1982 Rule 8
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Regulation 47
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations S.I 267-2 Regulation 2(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 Rule 3
• Court of Application Rules Rule 42(1)
• Court of Application Rules Rule 42(2)
• Court of Application Rules Rule 43
• Court of Application Rules Rule 52
• Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.101

Cases cited (4)

• Afriland First Bank (U) Ltd v Joseph Luzige, Kavuma Isa and Lubega Achilles (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2022)
• Lakham Bhinji v Manor Development Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2010)
• Omogole and Company Advocates v Ecetu Vincent (Miscellaneous Application No. 0002 of 2023)
• Peter Jogo, Tabu and Co.Advocates vs Waco Fred HCMA

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.

• Busingye Provia and Others v Shedrack Yaboneka (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 598 of 2025)

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