Wakilii

M/s Kibeedi & Co.Advocates v Pan Afric Commodities Ltd (Misc. Cause No.188 Of 2008) (Misc. Cause No.188 of 2008)

High Court · [2009] UGHC 189 · 2009 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application for taxation of advocate-client bill of costs, with preliminary objection by respondent
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to substantive hearing on taxation

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

Held that where a payment voucher relates to different legal services than those claimed in the advocate-client bill of costs under taxation, the existence of the bill is not negated. The Court has jurisdiction to tax an advocate-client bill under the Advocates Act without requiring a separate suit to resolve allegations of forgery or fraud concerning unrelated payment documents. The party alleging forgery bears the burden of proof.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to substantive hearing on taxation

Facts

The applicant law firm sought taxation of an advocate-client bill of costs for legal services rendered to the respondent in connection with negotiations and conclusion of a loan facility agreement with Barclays Bank in December 2006. The respondent raised a preliminary objection claiming that the bill had already been settled through a payment of UGX 3,500,000, evidenced by a payment voucher (document MMM5) described as "full and final settlement legal fees for the case against Pan Afric Commodities against Barclays Bank." The respondent further contended that if the voucher were disputed as a forgery, the matter required litigation by way of a separate suit, thereby ousting the Court's jurisdiction to tax the bill. The applicant argued that the payment voucher related to different legal services and did not discharge the fees claimed in the bill of costs before the Court.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a Bill of Costs to tax.
  2. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to conduct taxation where a party alleges forgery of a payment voucher.
  3. Whether a suit is required to challenge the validity of a payment voucher before taxation can proceed.

Orders

  • Preliminary objections raised by the respondent overruled.
  • Costs of the preliminary objection to abide the outcome of Misc. Application No. 188 of 2008.
  • Matter adjourned to 18 February 2009 at 3.00pm for substantive hearing.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocate-Client Bill of Costs — Taxation Jurisdiction — Effect of Disputed Payment
The existence of a disputed payment voucher relating to different legal services does not negate the existence of an advocate-client bill of costs or oust the Court's jurisdiction to conduct taxation under the Advocates Act.
Preliminary Objections — Fraud and Forgery — Requirement for Separate Suit
Allegations of fraud or forgery concerning a payment document do not require determination by way of a separate suit where the disputed document relates to different matters than the claim before the Court. The Court may proceed with the substantive application without first resolving the fraud allegation.
Burden of Proof — Allegations of Forgery and Fraud
Where a party raises an allegation of forgery or fraud in a payment voucher, the burden lies on that party to prove the forgery or fraud. Failure to discharge that burden results in the allegation being dismissed.
Advocates Act — Taxation Procedure — Institution of Suit
Under Section 57(1) of the Advocates Act, a suit to recover costs due to an advocate may only be instituted in the specific circumstances enumerated in that section. The institution of a suit is not a prerequisite to taxation of an advocate-client bill of costs under Sections 57 and 58(5) of the Act, which set out procedural requirements for taxation rather than conditions requiring prior litigation.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • General Parts (U) Ltd and Another v NPART (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2005)
  • [1965] EA 705
  • Fredrick Zabwe v Orient Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • [1982] HCB 129

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

M_s Kibeedi & Co.Advocates v Pan Afric Commodities Ltd (Misc. Cause No.188 Of 2008) (Misc. Cause No.188 of 2008) [2009] UGHC 189 (17 February 2009)
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.