Ssempija and Others v Mitala and Others (HCT-05-LD-MA 2443 of 2023)

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

Held that an application seeking to disqualify advocates on grounds of conflict of interest must join the law firm as a party to protect their constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution. Where the law firm was not made a party and given an opportunity to respond, the application infringes on their rights and cannot be properly determined.

Outcome

Application dismissed for failure to join the law firm as a necessary party

Facts

The applicant sought legal services from Advocate Lydia Ahimbisibwe in 2008 when purchasing Plot 50 Markhan Singh Street, Mbarara City. The purchase became contentious and gave rise to a land suit. Advocate Ahimbisibwe later partnered with Advocate Jadison Agaba to form M/s Ahimbisibwe & Agaba Co. Advocates in 2012. The firm now represents three plaintiffs adverse to the applicant in the land suit. The applicant filed this application seeking to bar the firm from representing the respondents on grounds of conflict of interest and breach of confidentiality. An earlier preliminary objection on the same grounds had been overruled on 18 April 2023, with the court advising that a formal application should be filed if disqualification was sought.

Issues

1. Whether the court should bar advocates of M/s Ahimbisibwe, Agaba & Co. Advocates from representing the respondents on grounds of conflict of interest.
2. Whether the application was barred by the doctrine of functus officio.
3. Whether the failure to join the law firm as a party rendered the application incompetent.

Orders

• Application dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Constitution of Uganda Article 28(1)
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rules 1, 2 & 3
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Regulation 4
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Regulation 5
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Regulation 7
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Regulation 9
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 Regulation 10

Cases cited (3)

• Uganda v Ojangole (Criminal Case No. 1 of 2014)
• Sudhir Ruparelia v MMAKS Advocates & 3 Others (MA No. 1063 of 2017)
• Egwedi Basil v Eroku James (HCCA No. 28 of 2012)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese T A St Francis Hospital Nsambya v Julius Ntabazi (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 197 of 2025) followed

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