Wakilii

Magellan Kazibwe & Co. Advocates v Yako Bank (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Cause 26 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 263 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for taxation of advocate and client bill of costs arising from HCCS No. 295 of 2017
Decision
Application allowed; Applicant's Bill of Costs to be taxed by the Taxing Officer

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 an advocate who has rendered legal services to a client is entitled to recover advocate-client costs upon taxation where the bill of costs has been properly served and the statutory waiting period has elapsed. Effective service on a corporation is established where documents bearing the company's official stamp with a signature are received at the head office, absent evidence disputing the authenticity of the stamp or signature. An advocate is not barred from recovering costs from their own client merely because a consent judgment awarded costs against the opposite party, where execution was frustrated by the client's failure to fund the process.

Outcome

Application allowed; Applicant's Bill of Costs to be taxed by the Taxing Officer

Facts

The Applicant law firm was instructed by the Respondent bank to file HCCS No. 295 of 2017. The Applicant prosecuted the suit and obtained a Consent Judgment and Decree in the Respondent's favour. The Applicant attempted execution but the Respondent refused to fund it. On 21 February 2023, the Applicant served the Respondent with a Demand Notice and an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs, giving the statutory 30 days for settlement. The Respondent failed to settle the bill within the stipulated time. The Applicant then brought this application under sections 57, 58 and 80 of the Advocates Act seeking orders for taxation of the bill of costs. The Respondent objected on two grounds: first, that service was ineffective because it was not properly effected on a principal officer; and second, that the consent judgment awarded costs of Ugx 6,000,000 against the defendants, and recovery from the Respondent would constitute unjust enrichment.

Issues

  1. Whether there was effective service of the Applicant's Bill of Costs and Demand Notice to the Respondent
  2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to recover the Costs from the Respondent

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The Applicant's Bill of Costs between them and the Respondent arising out of HCCS No. 295 of 2017 be taxed.
  • Costs of the Application to be borne by the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Advocate-Client Costs — Service of Bill of Costs on Corporation — Requirements under Advocates Act s.57
Under section 57(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, a bill of costs must be delivered to the party to be charged either personally, by registered post, or left at their place of business, dwelling house, or last known place of abode. Where a bill of costs bears the official stamp of a corporate respondent indicating receipt at its head office with a signature endorsed therein, and the respondent does not dispute the authenticity of the stamp or signature or adduce evidence that the signatory was not a principal officer, effective service is established.
Civil Procedure — Advocate-Client Costs — Burden of Proof of Service
The burden of proving service of a bill of costs lies on the advocate asserting that service was effected. This burden is discharged by evidence that the bill was delivered in compliance with section 57(2) of the Advocates Act. Where service is properly effected, the return of service should ordinarily be accompanied by an affidavit of service stating the time and manner of service.
Contract Law — Advocate-Client Relationship — Right to Recover Costs from Client
Advocate-client costs are the costs that an advocate claims from their own client for professional services rendered and disbursements made on behalf of the client. These costs are payable by the client whatever the outcome of the matter and are not dependent upon any award of costs by the court. Where an advocate has rendered services pursuant to instructions and the client frustrates execution of a consent judgment awarding costs against the opposite party, the advocate is entitled to recover their costs from the client upon taxation of a properly served bill of costs.
Contract Law — Unjust Enrichment — Advocate-Client Costs versus Party-Party Costs
An advocate claiming costs from their own client for services rendered does not constitute unjust enrichment merely because a consent judgment awarded costs against the opposite party, where those costs were never recovered due to the client's failure to fund execution. Advocate-client costs and party-party costs are distinct: the former arise from the retainer and are payable by the client regardless of the outcome; the latter are awarded by the court and recoverable from the losing party.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Byenkya, Kihika & Co. Advocates v Gandesha (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 2014)
  • Peter Jogo Tabu & Co. Advocates v Waco Fred (HCMA No. 30 of 2007)
  • Roko Construction Limited & 2 Others v Musana Gerald Rego (HCMA No. 1161 of 2021)
  • Ondoma v Kana (HCMA No. 0016 of 2018)
  • Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (S.C.C.A. No. 28 of 1993)
  • Peter Jogo Tabu & Co. Advocates v Waco Fred (HCMA No. 30 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Magellan Kazibwe & Co. Advocates v Yako Bank (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Cause 26 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 263 (28 September 2023)
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.