Wakilii

Mugisa M Abraham & 4 Others V Rwambuka & Co. Advocates (Miscellaneous Application No. 733 of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 138 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application arising from Civil Suit No. 113 of 2008 seeking declarations and injunctions to restrain respondent advocates from representing certain plaintiffs
Decision
Application dismissed; respondent advocates permitted to continue representing the plaintiffs who instructed them

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 9 citing cases on record, 9 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

Held that plaintiffs who revoked their powers of attorney to the applicants had the right to instruct new advocates. The respondent was properly instructed by a group of plaintiffs who formally revoked earlier powers. Regulation 2(1) of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations requires only that an advocate receive instructions from a person or their authorised agent. A party to litigation has the right to decide which lawyers represent them in court.

Outcome

Application dismissed; respondent advocates permitted to continue representing the plaintiffs who instructed them

Facts

The applicants were appointed as agents by power of attorney in March 2008 to conduct Civil Suit No. 113 of 2008 on behalf of approximately 153 plaintiffs. They instructed Mukuve & Co Advocates. In October 2018, 126 plaintiffs withdrew instructions from Mukuve & Co Advocates and instructed Rwambuka & Co Advocates, who filed a notice of change in November 2018. The applicants sought declarations that Rwambuka & Co were not properly instructed and an injunction restraining them from appearing. The withdrawal of instructions arose from a dispute over monies received from a separate industrial court award, where plaintiffs alleged Mukuve & Co Advocates deducted 33.3% of their payments under an undisclosed champertous agreement. About 75 plaintiffs formally revoked the powers of attorney. During a verification exercise ordered by the court, 53 plaintiffs confirmed Rwambuka & Co as their advocates while 21 confirmed Mukuve & Co.

Issues

  1. Whether Rwambuka & Co Advocates were duly instructed to represent the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 113 of 2008.
  2. Whether the applicants, as holders of powers of attorney, had exclusive authority to instruct advocates on behalf of the plaintiffs.
  3. Whether the plaintiffs who revoked powers of attorney had the right to instruct new advocates of their choice.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Legal Representation — Right to Choose Counsel — Revocation of Authority
A party to litigation has the right to decide which lawyers represent them in court. Where plaintiffs properly revoke powers of attorney given to agents, they are at liberty to instruct another lawyer of their choice and cannot be compelled to continue with counsel in whom they have lost professional confidence.
Administrative Law — Legal Profession — Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations — Proper Instruction
Under Regulation 2(1) of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations, an advocate may act for a person if he or she has received instructions from that person or their authorised agent. Where a group of plaintiffs formally revoke powers of attorney to earlier agents and directly instruct new advocates, those new advocates are properly instructed and entitled to act.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Vexatious Applications — Intimidation of Litigants
An application brought to intimidate plaintiffs who wish to change advocates and to prevent them from exercising their right to choose counsel constitutes an abuse of court process. Abuse occurs when a party improperly uses judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of opponents and the detriment of the efficient administration of justice.
Contract Law — Illegal Contracts — Champerty — Unenforceable Agreements
Champerty is a contract by which one person agrees to finance another's litigation in return for a share in the proceeds, the financier having no genuine or substantial interest in the outcome. Champertous agreements are classified as illegal contracts and cannot be enforced by any court of law.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Elizabeth Kobusingye v Annet Zimbiha (High Court Civil Suit No. 395 of 2014)
  • Shell (U) Ltd and 9 Others v Rock Petroleum and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2010)
  • Nareeba Dan and 5 Others v Joseph Bamwebeheire and 4 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2009)
  • Caneland Ltd & Others vs Delphis Bank Ltd Civil Application No. 344 of 1999 (Kenya Court of Appeal)
  • Benkay Nigeria Limited vs Cadbury Nigeria Limited No. 29 of 2006 (Supreme Court of Nigeria)
  • Seraki vs Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (pt 264) 156

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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.

Mugisa M Abraham & 4 Others V Rwambuka & Co. Advocates (Miscellaneous Application No. 733 of 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 138 (12 July 2019)
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.