Olwora v Uganda Central Cooperative Union Limited (Civil Appeal 25 of 1992)

Observed later treatment

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

The Supreme Court held that under the proviso to section 14(1) of the Advocates Act an advocate enjoys a two-month period of grace (until 1 March) during which he may practise without a renewed practising certificate and cannot be prosecuted. Documents signed and filed by a duly instructed advocate during that period are valid and competent, as section 14 is silent on their status and does not declare them illegal. However, under section 68 such an advocate cannot recover costs through the courts. The trial judge's ruling overruling the preliminary objection was correct, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; the High Court ruling overruling the preliminary objection upheld

Facts

The appellant filed a suit against the respondent for wrongful dismissal, seeking a declaration and damages. Counsel for the respondent entered appearance and filed a written statement of defence. When the suit came up for hearing, counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary objection that the entry of appearance and the written statement of defence had been signed and filed by an advocate who did not hold a valid practising certificate, contrary to section 14(1) of the Advocates Act, and prayed that the pleadings be struck out. The respondent's advocate admitted he had not renewed his certificate because his accounts had not gone to the Uganda Revenue Authority and the Law Council had not yet inspected his chambers, but contended he had signed the documents within the proviso's period of grace. The High Court overruled the objection and ordered the hearing to proceed, prompting this appeal.

Issues

1. Whether an advocate is entitled to practise without a valid practising certificate during the period of grace provided for in the proviso to section 14(1) of the Advocates Act.
2. Whether documents signed and filed by an advocate during the period of grace are valid and competent.
3. Whether such an advocate is entitled to recover costs in view of section 68 of the Advocates Act.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs of the appeal to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Advocates Act s.14(1)
• Advocates Act s.68
• Advocates Act s.10
• Civil Procedure Rules O.3 r.1
• Advocates (Enrolment and Certification) Regulations 1971 r.12

Cases cited (4)

• In Re M/s Lukeera & Co. Advocates (Miscellaneous Cause No. 76 of 1973)
• Moses Iga v Govindji Ravji (Civil Case No. 709 of 1971)
• Mayega v Katende and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 1979)
• Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)

Cases citing this judgment (6)

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.

• Elogu and Another v Ocen (Miscellaneous Application No. 78 of 2022)
• Otim Nape George William v Ebil Fred & Another (Election Petition 17 of 2011)
• Prof. Syed Huq v Islamic University in Kampala (Civil Appeal 47 of 1995)
• Bakunda v Dr. Kinyatta and Another (Election Petition 18 of 1996)
• Bakunda Darlington v Dr. Kinyatta B.G.S. and Another (Election Petition 18 of 1996)
• Bakunda Darlington v Dr. Kinyatta Stanley and Another (Civil Appeal 27 of 1996)

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