Messrs Sendege Senyondo & Co Advocates v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Suit No. 147 of 2016)

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

Held that a retainer agreement providing for remuneration according to statutory scales in force is not a remuneration agreement under Advocates Act s.50 and s.51 does not apply. Where a local government continues to instruct advocates after contract expiry, the advocates are entitled to payment under quantum meruit notwithstanding non-compliance with PPDA procedures, as procurement law provisions are directory not mandatory where to hold otherwise would work injustice on service providers with no control over internal procurement processes. Article 119(5) of the Constitution does not apply to local government entities as these are not 'Government' within the meaning of the Constitution.

Outcome

Plaintiff entitled to payment for legal services rendered; matter referred to Taxing Master for taxation of costs; Plaintiff to handover client files upon request

Facts

Plaintiff law firm entered a written retainer agreement with Kampala City Council (KCC) in 1996 for provision of legal services, agreement to expire December 2005. After expiry, Plaintiff continued receiving written instructions from KCC and successor KCCA on case-by-case basis until December 2015. Plaintiff paid all disbursements. Defendant refused payment claiming non-compliance with Advocates Act s.51 and PPDA Act procurement requirements. Solicitor General advised payment for pre-2006 services and application of quantum meruit for post-2006 services. Parties agreed facts and submitted legal questions for court's opinion under Order 35 CPR. No formal contract existed post-2005; engagement was by individual written instructions over 11 years.

Issues

1. Whether the agreement dated 11th October 1996 complies with the Advocates Act and Regulations made thereunder?
2. Whether the Plaintiff's claim from 1st January 2006 complies with the public procurement laws in Uganda?
3. Whether the Plaintiff, irrespective of questions (a) and (b) above, is entitled to payment for the Defendant's instructions carried out?
4. If any or all of the above questions are answered in favour of the Defendant, whether the Defendant is entitled to have possession of the files relating to matters which the Plaintiff handled without any payment?

Orders

• Plaintiff's action succeeds.
• Defendant shall immediately make provisions for payment of the Plaintiff for all unpaid services provided by the Plaintiff on the express instructions of the Defendant up to the time when instructions were formally withdrawn.
• Costs of the suit referred to the Taxing Master for taxation in accordance with the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules) S.I. 267-4.
• Plaintiff shall handover the files that the former client requires for the further conduct of its matters save for files required for taxation of costs between Advocate and Client.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (23)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 35
• Advocates Act s.48
• Advocates Act s.50
• Advocates Act s.51
• Advocates Act s.56
• Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations S.I. 267-2 Rule 2
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations S.I. 267-2 Rule 4
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations S.I. 267-2 Rule 6
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations S.I. 267-2 Rule 7
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.6
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.55
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.58
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.59(3)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.98(3)
• Local Government (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations S.I. No. 39 of 2006 Regulation 17
• Constitution of Uganda Article 2
• Constitution of Uganda Article 119
• Constitution of Uganda Article 176
• Constitution of Uganda Article 180
• Constitution of Uganda Article 257
• Judicature Act s.14(2)(b)(i)
• Judicature Act s.14(3)

Cases cited (17)

• Kituuma Magala & Co Advocates v Celtel (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2010)
• Finishing Touches v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 144 of 2010)
• Attorney General and Peter Nyombi v Uganda Law Society (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 321 of 2013)
• Shell (U) Ltd and 9 Others v Muwema & Mugerwa Advocates & Solicitors & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2013)
• Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanal (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2001)
• Kampala Capital City Authority v Hajjat Zahara T/A Keep Warm Restaurant (High Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2014)
• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11
• Arnold Brooklyn & Co Ltd v KCCA (Civil Suit No. 435 of 2011)
• Joka Investments Ltd v KCCA (Civil Suit No. 54 of 2014)
• Agri-Industrial Management Agency Ltd v Kayonza Growers Tea Factory Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 819 of 2004)
• Craven-Ellis v Canons Ltd [1936] 2 All ER 1066
• Engineer Investments Ltd v Attorney General and Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Suit No. 331 of 2012)
• Nsimbe Holdings Ltd v Attorney General and Inspector General of Government (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2006)
• Uganda Broadcasting Corporation v SINBA (K) Ltd and Three Others (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 12 of 2004)
• Anold Brooklyn & Company v Kampala Capital City Authority and Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2013)
• Rochefoucauld v Boustead [1897] 1 Ch 196
• Cullimore v Lyme Regis Corporation [1961] 3 All ER 1008

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.

• Jogo v The Registered Trustees of the Church of The Province of Uganda (CIVIL APPEAL No. 0016 OF 2017)

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