Wakilii

Ms Guma and Company Advocates v Lule and Another (Misc cause. 141 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 140 · 2025 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
Decision
Application allowed; applicant granted leave to 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 court held that an advocate-client relationship existed between the applicant law firm and the respondents, evidenced by instructions, pleadings drafted, part payment received, and a notice of change of advocates. Professional work was performed but not fully paid. The court granted leave to the applicant to present their advocate-client bill of costs for taxation, notwithstanding the absence of prior service of a formal bill of costs on the respondents as required by section 63 of the Advocates Act.

Outcome

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

Facts

The applicant law firm was instructed by the respondents to represent and defend them in Civil Suit No. 253 of 2020. The respondents agreed to pay UGX 14,000,000 but only paid UGX 3,000,000. The applicant filed a defence, successfully applied to set aside an interlocutory judgment in Miscellaneous Application No. 1308 of 2023, and prepared trial bundles and witness statements. Before the matter was heard, the respondents changed advocates to M/S Kajeke, Magulu & Co. Advocates without paying the applicant's outstanding legal fees. The applicant sent a demand notice dated 5 March 2024 and an advocate-client bill of costs, which was received by the new advocates. The applicant then brought this application for leave to tax their bill of costs.

Issues

  1. Whether there was an advocate-client relationship between the parties and if so was professional work performed and not paid.

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to present their Advocate-Client bill of costs for taxation.
  • Costs of this application awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocate-Client Relationship — Formation — Oral or Written Instructions
An advocate-client relationship originates from instructions by a client which may be oral or written.
Advocate's Costs — Recovery — Requirement to Serve Bill of Costs
Under section 63(1) of the Advocates Act, no suit shall be brought to recover any costs due to an advocate until one month after a bill of costs has been delivered in accordance with the requirements of section 63(2), which include that the bill must be signed by the advocate and delivered to the party to be charged either personally or by registered post.
Affidavit Evidence — Unchallenged Evidence — Effect
Where an applicant supports an application by affidavit or other evidence and the respondent does not reply by affidavit or otherwise, and the supporting evidence is credible in itself, the facts stand as unchallenged.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (5)

  • Ondoma Samuel v Kana Richard (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2018)
  • Omongole and Company Advocates v Ecetu Vincent (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0002 of 2023)
  • Peter Jogo, Tabu and Co. Advocates v Waco Fred (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 030 of 2009)
  • Serefaco Consultants Limited v Euro Consults and Arcadis Euro Consult (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 16 of 2007)
  • H.G. Gandesha and Kampala Estates Ltd v G.J. Lutaya (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 14 of 1989)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ms_Guma_and_Company_Advocates_v_Lule_and_Another_(Misc_cause._141_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_140_(17_July_2025)
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.