Wakilii

Muwanga v Sun (Miscellaneous Application 129 of 2019)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 618 · 2024 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on a preliminary objection challenging the validity of an affidavit in reply deponed by counsel for the respondent
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed with costs in the cause

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 overruled a preliminary objection challenging an affidavit deponed by counsel for the respondent. Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations applies to individual advocates, not entire law firms. Where one advocate in a firm swears an affidavit in a contentious matter, that individual is personally conflicted from representing the client but the conflict does not extend to other advocates in the same firm.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed with costs in the cause

Facts

The applicant raised a preliminary objection to an affidavit in reply deponed by Ritah Maloba, an advocate from Mangeni Law Chambers representing the respondent. The applicant argued that the affidavit was defective under Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations because the advocate who swore the affidavit would be a witness and therefore the entire law firm was barred from representing the respondent. The application arose from Civil Suit No. 32 of 2017 and Miscellaneous Application No. 85 of 2019. Mangeni Law Chambers had been involved in the preparation of the transaction that was the subject of the underlying litigation.

Issues

  1. Whether an affidavit in reply deponed by counsel for the respondent was defective and improper under Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations.
  2. Whether an entire law firm is barred from representing a client where one of its advocates swore an affidavit in the matter.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Advocates — Professional Conduct — Application of Regulation 9 to Individual Advocates vs Law Firms
Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations, which bars an advocate who will be required to give evidence from appearing in the same matter, applies to individual advocates and not to law firms. Where one advocate in a firm swears an affidavit in a contentious matter, that individual is personally conflicted from representing the client, but the conflict does not extend to other advocates in the same firm.
Civil Procedure — Advocates — Professional Conduct — Effect of Advocate Swearing Affidavit on Validity of Evidence
An affidavit sworn by an advocate in the personal conduct of a contentious matter is not thereby rendered defective or bad in law warranting its striking off the record. Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations requires only that such an advocate shall cease to represent their client in that matter before the court.
Civil Procedure — Advocates — Professional Conduct — Dual Role as Advocate and Witness
Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations deals with the incompatibility of the role of advocate and witness in the same case, not conflict of interest. The regulation aims at distinguishing between an advocate practicing before the court and a witness, requiring the advocate to choose one role in contentious matters.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Regulation 9

Cases cited (4)

  • Jayath Amritlal and Anor V Prime Finance Company Itd
  • M/S Quality (U) Ltd and Anor v Uganda Performing Rights Society and Others (Civil Suit No. 444 of 2019)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Kasirye Byaruhanga and Co. Advocates (SCCA No. 35 of 1994)
  • Henry Kaziro Lwandasa v Kyas Global Trading Co. Ltd (HCMA No. 865 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muwanga v Sun (Miscellaneous Application 129 of 2019) [2024] UGHC 618 (3 July 2024)
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.