Wakilii

Muwema & Co. Advocates & Solicitors v China Railway No. 3 Engineering Group Co. Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 138 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 60 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by law firm for leave to tax advocate-client bill of costs for legal services rendered to client in procurement administrative review proceedings
Decision
Application largely succeeded. Leave granted to tax advocate-client bill of costs. Taxed costs to be paid by 1st respondent.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 the applicant law firm was instructed directly by the 1st respondent client, not through the 2nd respondent consultant. Leave to tax the advocate-client bill of costs was granted. The subject matter of the procurement administrative review proceedings was incapable of monetary valuation, and instruction fees should be assessed under paragraph 9(1) of the Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 2018, not on the basis of the bid value. The 1st respondent as disclosed principal is liable to pay the taxed costs, not the 2nd respondent consultant. Even if an authorized agent instructed the advocate, the disclosed principal remains liable absent exceptional circumstances.

Outcome

Application largely succeeded. Leave granted to tax advocate-client bill of costs. Taxed costs to be paid by 1st respondent.

Facts

The applicant law firm was instructed to represent the 1st respondent in procurement administrative review proceedings challenging unsuccessful bids for road construction contracts in three municipalities. The applicant filed an application for administrative review before Hoima City on 4 January 2021, a complaint before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority on 8 February 2021, and an appeal to the PPDA Appeals Tribunal on 18 March 2021. The 1st respondent instructed the applicant to withdraw the appeal on 26 March 2021. The applicant subsequently served a bill of costs totalling UGX 6,046,486,917 on the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent claimed it had instructed the 2nd respondent consultant, not the applicant directly, and that the consultant was paid UGX 150 million under an addendum to cover all expenses including lawyers' fees. A consultancy service agreement dated 5 December 2020 governed the relationship between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent consultant and his late colleague. The applicant applied for leave to tax the advocate-client bill of costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant law firm was instructed by the 1st respondent?
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to tax the advocate-client bill of costs?
  3. Whether the subject matter of the claim by the 1st respondent in the procurement administrative review process and appeal was UGX 84,796,690,927?
  4. Whether the 2nd respondent should be held liable to pay the taxed costs arising out of the applicant's advocate-client bill of costs?
  5. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to have their advocate-client bill of costs taxed by the taxing master of the court in accordance with the directions given in this ruling.
  • The taxed costs shall be paid to the applicant by the 1st respondent.
  • The costs of this application shall be paid to the applicant by the 1st respondent.
  • The 2nd respondent shall meet his own costs since he took benefit of the transaction between him and the 1st respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocate-Client Costs — Instruction of Advocates — Authority of Agent
Under the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations, an advocate may receive instructions from a client or the client's duly authorized agent. Where an agent acts on behalf of a disclosed principal, the agent does not attract personal liability for the advocate's fees unless exceptional circumstances are raised. The principal remains liable to pay the advocate's costs.
Agency — Scope of Authority — Consultancy Agreement
The scope of an agent's authority is determined by the terms of the agreement between principal and agent. Where a consultancy service agreement contains no express provision obligating the agent to procure legal services or instruct advocates, and expressly prohibits either party from incurring expenses on behalf of the other without prior written consent, the agent has no authority to instruct advocates on the principal's behalf without such consent. Procuring legal services outside the defined scope of work remains within the powers of the principal.
Advocate-Client Costs — Leave to Tax — Requirements
Under section 57 of the Advocates Act, no suit shall be brought to recover advocate's costs until one month after delivery of the bill of costs. The bill must be signed by the advocate or a partner of the firm and delivered to the party charged personally, by registered post, or left at their place of business, dwelling house, or last known place of abode. Where these requirements are satisfied, the court may grant leave to tax the advocate-client bill of costs.
Advocate-Client Costs — Contentious Matters Before Tribunals
A bill of costs containing a claim for costs incurred before a tribunal, brought in the form of an advocate-client bill of costs, can be entertained by the High Court and taxed in accordance with the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules. The Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 2018 provides for the scale of fees in High Court, magistrate courts, tribunals, and arbitration matters.
Advocate-Client Costs — Assessment of Instruction Fees — Subject Matter Valuation
Where legal services were rendered in procurement administrative review proceedings arising out of an unsuccessful bidding process, and no contract was awarded, the subject matter of the dispute is incapable of monetary valuation. Assessment of instruction fees cannot be based on the sum indicated in the unsuccessful bid document. The appropriate provision for assessment is paragraph 9(1) of the Sixth Schedule to the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) (Amendment) Rules 2018 (matters incapable of money valuation), not paragraph 1 (percentage-based instruction fees on monetary subject matter).
Agency — Disclosed Principal — Liability for Agent's Acts
Where an advocate is instructed by an agent acting on behalf of a disclosed principal, the principal is liable to pay the advocate's costs. The mere inclusion of the phrase 'lawyers' fees' in a payment to the agent under an addendum to a consultancy agreement does not establish that the parties agreed the agent would pay the advocate directly, particularly where there was no express variation of the earlier agreement regarding scope of work and no evidence the principal and agent discussed and agreed on specific legal expenses payable.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (5)

  • Kawamara Sam v Richard Jjuko (High Court Civil Suit No. 294 of 2009)
  • Shell (U) Ltd & Others v Rock Petroleum & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2010)
  • Ondoma Samuel t/a Alaka & Co. Advocates v Kana Richard (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 006 of 2018)
  • Byenkya Kihika & Co. Advocates v Saroj Gandesha (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 019 of 2014)
  • Joseph B. Byamugisha t/a Byamugisha Advocates v NSSF (Miscellaneous Cause No. 25 of 2011)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Muwema & Co. Advocates & Solicitors v China Railway No. 3 Engineering Group Co. Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 138 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 60 (29 April 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.