Wakilii

Muwema & Mugerwa Co. Advocates v National Water & Sewerage Corporation (Misc Application 536 of 2012)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCD 22 · 2013 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for charging order and payment of legal fees arising from consent judgment in earlier miscellaneous cause
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

Court held it has jurisdiction to entertain the application but dismissed it on the merits. Where a consent order provided that each party would bear its own costs, advocates who had agreed fees with their client could not obtain a charging order against the opposing party to secure those fees. The opposing party had no opportunity to accept or reject the benefit of the advocates' services and was not party to the fee agreement.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

Muwema & Mugerwa Advocates represented Patrick Semujju and numerous consumers of National Water & Sewerage Corporation's water services in Misc. Cause No. 192 of 2011, seeking recovery of VAT allegedly illegally collected by the Respondent. The advocates executed a remuneration agreement with their clients on 19 December 2011 specifying fees of UGX 493,825,648. Before the matter was heard, Uganda Revenue Authority paid UGX 2,256,045,088 to the Respondent on 19 April 2012 in settlement. A consent order was executed on 6 September 2012 with each party to bear its own costs. The Respondent refunded the money to its customers between January and April 2012. The advocates applied for a charging order against the Respondent to secure their agreed fees from the refunded sum. The Respondent opposed, arguing the consent order provided for each party to bear its own costs and the advocates' fee agreement with their clients did not bind the Respondent.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the application.
  2. Whether the applicants are entitled to a charging and payment order for their fees of UGX 493,825,648.
  3. Whether the court should re-open the remuneration agreement and require the applicants to file a bill of costs.
  4. Whether the respondent refunded the monies recovered in Misc. Cause No. 192 of 2011 to its customers and if so, whether the respondent is liable to pay the applicant's fees.
  5. Whether the applicant is entitled to costs of the application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Charging Orders — Advocates' Fees — Consent Orders Providing Each Party Bear Own Costs
Where parties to litigation conclude their matter by consent order providing that each party shall bear its own costs, an advocate who agreed fees with one party cannot obtain a charging order against the opposing party to secure those fees, as the opposing party was not party to the fee agreement and had no opportunity to accept or reject the benefit of the advocate's services.
Contract Law — Non-Gratuitous Acts — Contract Act 2010 s.58 — Party Not Enjoying Benefit
Section 58 of the Contract Act 2010, which requires a person enjoying the benefit of a non-gratuitous act to compensate the person providing the benefit, does not apply where the party sought to be charged did not enjoy the benefit and had no opportunity of accepting or rejecting it.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Functus Officio — Fresh Application After Consent Order
A court has jurisdiction to entertain a fresh application for charging orders after conclusion of the underlying matter by consent order, as the court is not functus officio with respect to new proceedings, though the merits of such application are a separate question.

Legislation cited (8)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muwema & Mugerwa Co. Advocates v National Water & Sewerage Corporation (Misc Application 536 of 2012) [2013] UGHCCD 22 (15 February 2013)
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.