Wakilii

Ojiambo and Company Advocates v Eashri (Taxation Cause 2 of 2014)

East African Court of Justice · [2016] EACJ 125 · 2016 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation cause arising from Application No. 20 of 2014; respondent sought to strike out advocate-client bill of costs
Decision
Application to strike out bill of costs dismissed; taxation to proceed

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

Held that an advocate-client relationship existed between Ojiambo & Company Advocates and Uhai Eashri by implication from the client's conduct, including the director swearing a supporting affidavit, facilitating advocates' travel and subsistence, and never challenging representation throughout proceedings. The agreement between Uhai Eashri and Milka Wahu Kuria was for consultancy services, not legal representation, and did not preclude the advocates from filing a bill of costs. Application to strike out the bill dismissed.

Outcome

Application to strike out bill of costs dismissed; taxation to proceed

Facts

Ojiambo & Company Advocates represented Uhai Eashri in Application No. 20 of 2014 seeking leave to be enjoined as amicus curiae in Reference No. 6 of 2014. The application was dismissed with costs on 17 February 2015. On 17 June 2015, Ojiambo & Company Advocates filed an advocate-client bill of costs against Uhai Eashri. Before the taxation hearing, Uhai Eashri applied to strike out the bill, arguing there was no advocate-client relationship because they had retained Milka Wahu Kuria as a consultant under a written agreement dated 3 July 2014, and it was Milka Wahu who engaged Ojiambo & Company Advocates as lead counsel. Ojiambo & Company Advocates contended they were the advocates on record, had held meetings with Uhai Eashri officers, prepared the application showing their address for service, and were facilitated by Uhai Eashri for travel and subsistence to attend hearings in Arusha.

Issues

  1. Whether there was an advocate-client relationship between Ojiambo & Company Advocates and Uhai Eashri.
  2. Whether the agreement between Uhai Eashri and Milka Wahu Kuria precluded Ojiambo & Company Advocates from filing an advocate-client bill of costs.
  3. Whether the bill of costs should be struck out.

Orders

  • Application by Uhai Eashri to strike out the Bill of Costs dismissed.
  • Respondent awarded USD 200 for instructions to defend the application, drawing affidavit in reply, and attendance at hearing.
  • Costs of travel and subsistence for the hearing to be included in the taxation cause and taxed upon production of receipts.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Advocate-Client Relationship — Establishment by Implication
An advocate-client relationship can be established by implication from the client's conduct, including a director swearing a supporting affidavit prepared by the advocate, facilitating the advocate's travel and subsistence for court attendance, and failing to challenge the advocate's representation throughout proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Advocate-Client Bills — Rule 113(2) EACJ Rules
Rule 113(2) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure relates to agreements on remuneration between advocate and client, not to instructions for representation. Where there is no agreement on remuneration, either party may refer the matter to the Registrar for taxation.
Civil Procedure — Consultancy Agreements Distinguished from Legal Representation
An agreement for consultancy services, even where the consultant is tasked with facilitating legal proceedings and engaging lead counsel, does not constitute an agreement for legal representation within the meaning of Rule 113(2) of the EACJ Rules of Procedure.

Legislation cited (6)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 113(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 113(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 113(3)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 17
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 17(5)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 18(2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ojiambo and Company Advocates v Eashri (Taxation Cause 2 of 2014) [2016] EACJ 125 (26 May 2016)
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.