Ms Kimanje Nsibambi Advocates v Tamale and Another (Misc Cause 145 of 2020)
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 a Power of Attorney cannot be construed as an enforceable remuneration agreement under sections 48 and 51 of the Advocates Act where it fails to meet mandatory requirements. However, where a law firm demonstrates it rendered legal services to clients who instructed the firm through their agents (the donees of the Power of Attorney) and the clients are liable to pay costs for work done, the firm is entitled to taxation of its advocate-client bill on the basis prescribed in the Fifth Schedule of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations. The firm is not entitled to claim a percentage of property value where no sale transaction was completed.
Outcome
Application partly allowed. Leave granted to tax the advocate-client bill of costs with costs awarded to the applicants at 50%.
Facts
The applicant law firm claimed it had been instructed by the respondents via a Power of Attorney dated 13 June 2016, which appointed Mrs Resty Nakayenga Kiguli and Mr Moses Mpanga as donees to act on behalf of the respondents in matters relating to the estate of their late father Tamale Antoni. Clause 1 of the Power of Attorney specified that the donees should execute their duties with the applicant firm. The firm rendered legal services including applying for a special certificate of title for land comprised in Kyadondo Block 243 Plot 1348 at Luzira, Nakawa Division. The firm demanded payment of UGX 890,900,000, representing 10% of the land value as stipulated in clause 4 of the Power of Attorney. The respondents denied instructing the firm, stating they only appointed the donees, and that the Power of Attorney was later revoked on 24 July 2018. The respondents contended no advocate-client relationship existed. Cross-examination revealed that one respondent's signature appeared on documents drawn by the firm, and that the donee Mrs Nakayenga would take the respondents to the firm's offices when legal work was needed.
Issues
- Whether the application is competent before this court?
- Whether an Advocate-Client relationship exists between the Firm and the Tamales?
- Whether the Tamales instructed the Firm as alleged, and if so, whether the Firm executed the instructions?
- Whether there is an agreement for remuneration between the Tamales and the Firm?
- Whether the Firm is entitled to have its Bill of costs taxed?
Orders
- Leave granted to Tax the Advocates-Clients Bill of costs.
- Taxation to be done on the basis prescribed in the Fifth Schedule under Regulation 14(e) and 15 of the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulations, as Amended.
- Applicants awarded 50% of the costs of this application on account that their application succeeds only partially.
- Award carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of this Ruling until the date payment is made in full.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (16)
- Advocates Act s.57
- Advocates Act s.58
- Advocates Act s.50
- Advocates Act s.48
- Advocates Act s.51
- Advocates Act s.1
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rules 1 & 3
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 Rule 2
- Registration of Titles Act
- Business Names Registration Act
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations s.267-4
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Schedule 5 Regulation 14(e)
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations Schedule 5 Regulation 15
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2018
- Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations Regulation 2(1)
Cases cited (1)
- Frederick J.K Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and 5 Others (SCCA No. 04 of 2006)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.