Nabagulanyi Robinah and Others v Catherine Bukirwa [2026] UGHCFD 80

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.

Holding

On unchallenged affidavit evidence, the court held on a balance of probabilities that M/S Katongole, Yiga, Masone Advocates filed a Family Division suit on behalf of the applicants without their instructions, in breach of Regulation 2(1) of the Advocates' Professional Conduct Regulations. An advocate lacks authority to act, and cannot bind a client to litigation, absent proper instructions, rendering such proceedings fundamentally defective. The court struck the applicants off the suit, allowed the remaining two plaintiffs and the respondent to proceed, and ordered the firm responsible for the unauthorized filing to pay the costs of the application.

Outcome

Applicants struck off the underlying suit for want of instructions; the remaining plaintiffs and the respondent proceed with the suit; the offending firm ordered to pay the costs of the application

Facts

M/S Katongole, Yiga, Masone Advocates filed Civil Suit No. HCT-00-FD-CS-0268-2025 in the High Court Family Division. The applicants, named as plaintiffs, brought this application asserting that they had never given instructions to that firm to file the suit on their behalf, and denied any acquaintance with the firm. The second applicant deposed a supporting affidavit stating categorically that no instructions were given. Neither the respondent nor the firm filed any affidavit to refute these assertions, so the evidence stood unchallenged. Of the plaintiffs on the record, one (described as the fourth plaintiff) never appeared before the court to be interrogated on whether instructions had been given, so the suit could not be struck from the record entirely.

Issues

1. Whether Civil Suit No. HCT-00-FD-CS-0268-2025 was filed without instructions from the Applicants.
2. Whether such filing, if established, constitutes a breach of the professional obligations imposed on advocates.
3. What remedies are appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders

• The Applicants are struck off Civil Suit No. HCT-00-FD-CS-0268-2025 for want of instructions from the Applicants.
• The remaining two Plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. HCT-00-FD-CS-0268-2025, together with the Respondent in this application, will proceed with the suit.
• M/S Katongole, Yiga, Masone Advocates/Solicitors are ordered to pay the costs of this Application to the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.27
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 6 Rule 18
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rules 1-4
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 9 Rule 20(1)(a)
• Advocates' Professional Conduct Regulations S.I 267-2 Regulation 2(1)
• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.101
• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.101(1)
• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.102
• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.103

Cases cited (5)

• Buike Estates Coffee Limited v. S. Lutach & Anor (1962) E.A 328
• Lakhman Bhimji v Manor Developments Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2010)
• Kabale Housing Estates Tenants Association v Kabale Municipal Local Council (Civil Application No. 15 of 2013)
• Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v. Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal, 1997)
• Paul Mwiru v Hon. Igeme Nathan Nabeta Samson and Others (Election Appeal No. 6 of 2011)

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