Wakilii

Redmond Associated Advocates v Middle East Hospital & Shopping Complex Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause 54 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 340 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to tax advocate-client bill following provision of legal services
Decision
Leave granted to tax advocate-client bill; matter referred to Registrar for taxation

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 court granted leave to tax the advocate-client bill where the applicant law firm provided due diligence services to the respondent from December 2024 to May 2025, including land searches, locus visits, and tax inquiries. The respondent failed to pay despite demand and did not file a reply to the application. The court held that unchallenged affidavit evidence is presumed admitted and that the applicant proved entitlement to payment for services rendered.

Outcome

Leave granted to tax advocate-client bill; matter referred to Registrar for taxation

Facts

Redmond Associated Advocates provided legal services to Middle East Hospital & Shopping Complex Ltd from December 2024 to May 2025. The services included conducting due diligence for a land sale transaction: conducting searches, visiting locus, attending meetings, reviewing powers of attorney and company specialization documents, examining land titles in the lease register, and making two inquiries through URA regarding tax position. The respondent executed a sale with a different person but refused to pay the law firm. On 2 May 2025, the applicant served a demand letter on the respondent. On 13 May 2025, the applicant filed Taxation Application No. 294 of 2025 and served it on the respondent. The respondent did not respond to the demand or file a reply to the application. The respondent was duly served with the Miscellaneous Cause and was aware of the hearing date but did not appear.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to tax the advocate-client bill for legal services rendered to the respondent.

Orders

  • Leave is hereby granted to tax the advocate client bill in Taxation Application No. 294 of 2025 filed on the 14th day of May 2025 and served unto the respondent.
  • The Registrar, as the taxing master, shall tax the advocate client bill in Taxation Application No. 294 of 2025 in accordance with the law.
  • Costs of the application are granted to the applicant.
  • Order for the matter to proceed ex parte against the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Service — Effect of Failure to Appear
Where a respondent has been duly served with an application and affidavit of service is filed, the court may grant an order for the matter to proceed ex parte against the respondent who fails to appear.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Unchallenged Affidavit Evidence — Presumption of Admission
Where an applicant supports an application by affidavit evidence and the respondent does not file an affidavit in reply despite being served, and the supporting evidence is credible in itself, the facts stand as unchallenged and are presumed to be admitted.
Commercial Law — Advocate-Client Relationship — Taxation of Bills — Leave to Tax
A law firm that has provided legal services to a client and has not been paid is entitled to seek leave of court to tax the advocate-client bill, and such leave will be granted where the applicant proves that services were rendered, demand was made, and payment has not been received.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Serefaco Consultants Ltd v Euro Consult BV and Another (Civil Application No. 16 of 2007)
  • William Akankwasa v Registrar of Titles (HCMA No. 33 of 2008)
  • Samwiri Masa v Rose Achieng [1978] HCB 297

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Redmond Associated Advocates v Middle East Hospital & Shopping Complex Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause 54 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 340 (22 September 2025)
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.