Wakilii

Mukiibi v Lwandasa and 7 Others (Civil Suit 22 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 280 · 2022 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of land and enforcement of sale agreements, with preliminary objections raised by 3rd–8th defendants
Decision
Suit dismissed; agreements cancelled; plaintiff entitled to refund of purchase price with interest and to file bill of costs for professional fees

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 both agreements (dated 11th April 2013 and 23rd March 2015) were illegal and unenforceable. The first agreement was a champertous arrangement where land was given in lieu of professional fees, violating the Advocates Act requirements for remuneration agreements. The 1st defendant intermeddled with the estate by dealing with land before obtaining Letters of Administration. The plaintiff failed to disclose a cause of action against the 3rd–8th defendants. Both agreements were cancelled; the plaintiff was ordered to file a bill of costs for the first agreement and to be refunded UGX 7,000,000 with interest for the second. The suit was dismissed.

Outcome

Suit dismissed; agreements cancelled; plaintiff entitled to refund of purchase price with interest and to file bill of costs for professional fees

Facts

The plaintiff, an advocate, entered into two agreements with the 1st defendant. The first agreement dated 11th April 2013 provided that the 1st defendant would give the plaintiff 13 acres of land in Block 112 at Kyeyitabya in lieu of professional fees for representing him in pursuing Letters of Administration. The second agreement dated 23rd March 2015 was for the sale of Plot 45 for UGX 7,000,000. The land included plots that were registered in the names of the 3rd–8th defendants or the late Joseph Kateregga whose estate they administered. The 3rd–8th defendants applied to join the suit, claiming ownership of Plots 35 and 45. At the time of the first agreement, the 1st defendant had not obtained Letters of Administration for the estate of the late Yozefati Lwandasa Lukwago. The 1st defendant failed to deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff.

Issues

  1. Whether the 3rd–8th defendants, not being parties to the agreements between the plaintiff and 1st defendant, could raise objections to those agreements under the doctrine of privity of contract.
  2. Whether the agreement dated 11th April 2013 constituted an illegal champertous agreement contrary to public policy.
  3. Whether the agreement dated 11th April 2013 complied with the requirements of the Advocates Act sections 50(1) and 51.
  4. Whether the 1st defendant intermeddled with the estate of the late Yozefati Lwandasa Lukwago by dealing with it before obtaining Letters of Administration.
  5. Whether the plaintiff disclosed a cause of action against the 3rd–8th defendants.
  6. Whether the consideration for the agreements was unlawful under the Contracts Act 2010.

Orders

  • The agreements dated 11th April 2013 and 23rd March 2015 are cancelled.
  • In regard to the agreement dated 11th April 2013, the plaintiff shall file a bill of costs to be taxed as if the agreement had never been made.
  • In regard to the agreement dated 23rd March 2015, the plaintiff shall be refunded the purchase price of UGX 7,000,000 with interest at court rate from the date of this ruling until payment in full.
  • The plaintiff has a claim only against the 1st defendant who shall pay him costs after the bill of costs is filed and taxed accordingly.
  • The main suit is dismissed without costs.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Champerty — Illegal Contracts — Agreements for Legal Services in Exchange for Land
An agreement whereby an advocate agrees to provide legal services in contentious matters in exchange for land rather than a gross sum or salary constitutes a champertous agreement, is contrary to public policy, and is illegal and unenforceable.
Advocates Act — Remuneration Agreements — Statutory Requirements
A remuneration agreement between an advocate and client for contentious business must comply with sections 50(1) and 51 of the Advocates Act. An agreement providing for remuneration in land rather than by gross sum or salary violates section 50(1) and is illegal and unenforceable.
Advocates Act — Notary Public Certificate — Mandatory Requirement
Section 51 of the Advocates Act requires that a remuneration agreement contain a certificate signed by a notary public certifying that the nature of the agreement was explained to the person bound and that they appeared to understand it. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the agreement illegal and unenforceable.
Intermeddling — Dealing with Estate Before Grant of Letters of Administration
A person who deals with the estate of a deceased person before obtaining Letters of Administration intermeddles with the estate and becomes an executor de son tort. The court will not validate transactions entered into by an intermeddler.
Privity of Contract — Third Party Objections to Illegality
While the doctrine of privity of contract ordinarily prevents third parties from enforcing or objecting to a contract to which they are not party, a third party may bring to the court's attention that a contract is illegal and contrary to public policy. The court will not enforce an illegal contract once the illegality is brought to its attention.
Cause of Action — Amendment of Pleadings Upon Joinder of Parties
Where additional defendants are joined to a suit with claims to the subject matter, the plaintiff must amend the plaint to disclose a cause of action against the newly joined defendants. Failure to do so means the plaintiff has no cause of action against those defendants.
Unlawful Consideration — Illegality — Void Agreements
Under section 19 of the Contracts Act 2010, an agreement whose consideration is unlawful is void, and no suit shall be brought for recovery of money paid or thing delivered under such agreement. Where consideration involves land transferred in breach of succession law and in furtherance of a champertous agreement, the consideration is unlawful.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (23)

  • Among Mary Goretti v Tracks International Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 280 of 2010)
  • Elizabeth Kobusingye v Annet Zimbiha (Court of Appeal No. 69 of 2019)
  • Kawamara Sam v Richard Juuko (High Court Civil Suit No. 294 of 2009)
  • Shell (U) Ltd and 9 Others v Rock Petroleum and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2010)
  • Mkono & Co. Advocates v. JW Land War (1977) ltd (2002) E.A 145
  • SINBA (K) and Others v UBC (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2014)
  • Demarara Bauxite C. v. Hubbard [1923] AC 673
  • Kitaka and 12 Others v Mohamood Thobani (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2021)
  • Kituuma Magala & Co. Advocates v. Celtel (U) Ltd, [2001-20005] HCB Vol 3 at 72
  • Joseph M. Nviri v Olwoc and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 926 of 1998)
  • Kapeke Coffee Works Ltd v Npart (Court of Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Nelson Sande Ndugo v Electoral Commission (High Court Civil Suit No. 4 of 2006)
  • Annet Namirum Ndaula v Bulondo and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 27 of 2011)
  • Makula International v. Cardinal Nsubuga Wamala, (1982) H.C.B 11
  • Auto Garage v. Motov (1971) E.A 315
  • Noame Juma and Others v Nantume Ruth and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 363 of 2010)
  • Grace Manjeri Nafula v Bridger Elly Kayanja and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 136 of 2011)
  • Cooke v. Gull LR 8E.P 116
  • Read v Brown 22 QBD P.31
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Kebirungi v. Road Trainers Ltd & 2 others [2008] HCB 72
  • Printing & Numerical Registering Company v. Sampson (1875) 19 Eq 462
  • Holman v. Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukiibi_v_Lwandasa_and_7_Others_(Civil_Suit_22_of_2019)_[2022]_UGHCLD_280_(1_December_2022)
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.