Nsubuga,Mubiru and Company Advocates v Kebikomi and Another (Consolidated Miscellaneous Cause 42 of 2023; Consolidated Miscellaneous Cause 61 of 2023)
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 High Court held that where an advocate proves service of a bill of costs in compliance with Section 57(2) of the Advocates Act, the bill is presumed bona fide unless the contrary is shown. Mere receipts acknowledging part payments do not constitute an agreement on legal fees and cannot rebut this presumption. Service upon one executor amounts to service upon all co-executors. The applicant satisfied all statutory requirements for taxation and was granted leave to tax both advocate-client bills of costs.
Outcome
Applications allowed; matter proceeds to taxation before the taxing master
Facts
The applicant law firm represented the late Christopher Obey in two criminal matters before the Anti-Corruption Court and Court of Appeal. Following the client's death, legal fees remained unpaid. On 7 November 2022, the applicant served demand notices and advocate-client bills of costs upon the respondents, who are administrators of the deceased's estate. The respondents opposed taxation, claiming fees had been agreed and paid in full before the client's death, and that proper service had not been effected. The respondents produced receipts and handwritten acknowledgements showing various payments to the applicant during the conduct of the matters.
Issues
- Whether leave to tax the advocate-client bills of costs should be granted?
- What remedies are available to the applicant?
Orders
- The applicant is granted leave to present the respective advocate-client bills of costs for taxation by the taxing master of the Court.
- The costs of the consolidated applications shall be paid by the respondents.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (11)
- Advocates Act Cap 267 s.57
- Advocates Act Cap 267 s.60(1)
- Advocates Act Cap 267 s.60(2)
- Advocates Act Cap 295 s.57(1)
- Advocates Act Cap 295 s.57(2)(a)
- Advocates Act Cap 295 s.57(2)(b)
- Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations SI 267-4
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52
- Contracts Act 2010 s.10(1)
- Civil Procedure Act s.27
Cases cited (2)
- Muziransa Associated Advocates v Harriet Sanyu T/a Hamosa Catering Services (Miscellaneous Cause No. 08 of 2017)
- Roko Construction Ltd v Adam Ssempijja (Miscellaneous Application No. 38 of 2021)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.