Wakilii

Ms Quality Uganda Limited T/a Quality Supermarket v Uganda Performing Rights Society (UPRS) and 4 Others (Civil Suit No. 444 of 2019)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 165 · 2021 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection to representation based on alleged conflict of interest at scheduling conference stage
Decision
M/S Ligomarc Advocates disqualified from representing the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants; matter to proceed with new representation

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 6 citing cases on record, 6 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 a law firm appointed as caretaker manager cannot act as both party and advocate in a contentious matter challenging the exercise of its caretaker powers. While Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations deals with individual witnesses and not entire firms, and a third party cannot enforce fiduciary duties owed to another, the fusion of roles as party-litigant and advocate is inconsistent with professional duties and compromises the advocate's duty to the court. M/S Ligomarc Advocates was disqualified from representing the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants.

Outcome

M/S Ligomarc Advocates disqualified from representing the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants; matter to proceed with new representation

Facts

The Plaintiff sued the Defendants over alleged copyright infringement enforcement actions. The 1st Defendant (Uganda Performing Rights Society) posted enforcement notices against the Plaintiff in August 2019. The 3rd and 4th Defendants, acting as Caretaker Managers of the 1st Defendant, issued enforcement notices claiming UGX 71,646,172 in licensing fees for 2014-2019. On 6 September 2019, the Defendants conducted a joint operation at the Plaintiff's Lubowa branch. M/S Ligomarc Advocates had been appointed as Caretaker Manager of the 1st Defendant and nominated the 3rd and 4th Defendants (who were Managing Partner and Associate Partner respectively in the firm) to execute the caretaker assignment. At scheduling conference, the Plaintiff raised a preliminary objection that M/S Ligomarc Advocates was conflicted in representing the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants.

Issues

  1. Whether M/S Ligomarc Advocates was conflicted in representing the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants on the basis that the 3rd and 4th Defendants were potential witnesses and partners in the firm.
  2. Whether M/S Ligomarc Advocates breached fiduciary duties owed to the 1st Defendant by representing the defendants in the suit.
  3. Whether a law firm appointed as caretaker manager can represent itself and its nominees in a suit challenging the exercise of caretaker powers.

Orders

  • The Firm of M/S Ligomarc Advocates is disqualified from representing any of the Defendants in the suit.
  • The objection by the Plaintiff is partly upheld.
  • Costs awarded to the Plaintiff against the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Legal Representation — Conflict of Interest — Regulation 9 Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations — Individual Witnesses vs Entire Firm
Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations deals with incompatibility of the role as advocate and witness in the same case and not conflict of interest. The regulation deals with individuals as required witnesses and not the firm. Where two advocates in a firm are witnesses or potential witnesses in a matter, the entire firm is not thereby conflicted on the basis of Regulation 9 alone, as the role and competence of a witness is personal.
Legal Representation — Fiduciary Duties — Third Party Enforcement
A fiduciary relationship binds the fiduciary and the beneficiary. The duties placed upon the fiduciary are owed to the beneficiary. Where the beneficiary is not complaining, a third party cannot base on alleged breach of fiduciary duties to lay a claim. A third party cannot enforce a fiduciary relationship to which it is not a party.
Legal Representation — Dual Role as Party and Advocate — Professional Conduct
A law firm cannot act as both party-litigant and advocate in the same contentious matter. Where a firm is appointed as caretaker manager and its partners execute the caretaker assignment as nominees, the firm's acts bind it and it becomes in effect a party to any suit challenging those acts. Permitting the firm to represent itself would place it in the position of principal and agent simultaneously, which is inconsistent with professional duties and compromises the advocate's duty to the court.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Advocates Act Cap 267 s.2(a)
  • Advocates Act Cap 267 s.2(b)
  • Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Regulation 2(1)
  • Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Regulation 9
  • Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Regulation 10
  • Partnership Act 2010 s.5(2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Uganda v Patricia Ojangole (Criminal Case No. 1 of 2014)
  • Hollis & Others v Rolfe & Others [2008] EWHC 1747 (Ch)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Kasirye, Byaruhanga and Company Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1994)
  • Henry Kaziro Lwandasa v Kyas Global Trading Co. Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 865 of 2014)
  • Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1996] EWCA Civ 533; [1998] Ch 1; [1997] 2 WLR 436

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ms Quality Uganda Limited T_a Quality Supermarket v Uganda Performing Rights Society (UPRS) and 4 Others (Civil Suit No. 444 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCD 165 (16 December 2021)
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.