Wakilii

M s Tumusiime, Kabega & Co. Advocates v Wills International Engineers & Contractors Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 165 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 84 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to tax advocate-client bill of costs arising from Civil Suit No. 802 of 2015
Decision
Application allowed; leave granted to file and tax advocate-client bill of costs

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 the applicant law firm to file and tax an advocate-client bill of costs for professional services rendered in Civil Suit No. 802 of 2015 and the subsequent appeal. The court held that professional fees are recoverable from the client irrespective of the outcome of the matter or any party-party costs order against a third party. The applicant satisfied the requirements under Section 63 of the Advocates Act: a client-advocate relationship existed, a signed bill was served, and thirty days had lapsed without payment or response.

Outcome

Application allowed; leave granted to file and tax advocate-client bill of costs

Facts

The applicant law firm represented the respondents in High Court Civil Suit No. 802 of 2015, which was decided on 28 August 2017. The respondents instructed the applicant to lodge an appeal, and Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 260 of 2017 was filed on 8 September 2017 and determined in favour of the respondents on 24 February 2022. The applicant served a demand notice and advocate-client bill of costs on the respondents for professional fees incurred in the High Court suit. More than fifty days elapsed without payment or response. The respondents contended that costs should be recovered from DFCU Bank Limited, the opposing party in the litigation, rather than from them as clients. The applicant brought this application seeking leave to tax the advocate-client bill of costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents are responsible for costs to be paid to the Applicant?
  2. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the Applicant to file an Advocate-Client bill of costs.
  • The Advocate-Client bill of costs be taxed.
  • The Applicant is granted costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocate-Client Costs — Recovery of Professional Fees — Requirements under Advocates Act
An advocate seeking to recover costs from a client must satisfy three requirements: (1) that a client-advocate relationship existed in which service was rendered; (2) that a signed bill of costs was served upon the client; and (3) that thirty days have lapsed without the client's response on payment.
Advocate-Client Costs — Professional Fees Recoverable from Client Regardless of Party-Party Costs Order
Professional fees for services rendered by an advocate to a client are recoverable from the client irrespective of the outcome of the matter or any party-party costs order made in favour of the client against a third party. The client remains liable for advocate-client costs even where the opposing party has been ordered to pay party-party costs.
Taxation of Costs — Inherent Powers of Taxing Officer
A taxing officer has inherent powers to examine the nature and extent of the work carried out by an advocate in order to determine whether the costs incurred are recoverable from the client.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Senkungu & 4 Ors v Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
  • Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
  • Ondoma Samuel t/a Alaka and Company Advocates v Kana Richard (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2018)
  • Byenkya Kihika & Co. Advocates v Gandesha (Miscellaneous Application No. 019 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

M s Tumusiime, Kabega & Co. Advocates v Wills International Engineers & Contractors Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 165 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 84 (9 March 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.