Wakilii

Tumwijukye Mpirirwe & 10 Others V Lt. Col. Kabareebe David & 13 Others (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 193 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application arising from earlier compensation proceedings relating to Mpokya evictees seeking orders for distribution of compensation monies
Decision
Application dismissed; compensation to be paid through respondents' lawyers after verification of legitimate claimants; illegal agreements avoided

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 dismissed the application and held that the compensation monies arising from the Mpokya evictees case should be paid through M/s Mushabe, Munungu & Co. Advocates, who represented the claimants at the material time. The court found that MECCABEA, an association created after judgment, included persons not party to the original suit and was used to fraudulently deprive legitimate claimants of their compensation. Agreements purportedly entered by the late attorney to pay funders constituted illegal champerty and maintenance and were unenforceable.

Outcome

Application dismissed; compensation to be paid through respondents' lawyers after verification of legitimate claimants; illegal agreements avoided

Facts

This miscellaneous application arose from a long-running compensation matter concerning Mpokya evictees who obtained judgment in Civil Suit No. 207 of 1993. After judgment, an association called MECCABEA was formed purportedly to represent the beneficiaries. The original attorney Benon Turyamureeba died in 2016, having received and allegedly misappropriated portions of the first instalment of compensation. The applicants, claiming to be the elected executive of MECCABEA, sought orders that compensation be paid through MECCABEA representatives and that various agreements entered by the late attorney be enforced. The respondents, holding powers of attorney from 1083 of the 1097 original claimants, opposed the application, arguing that MECCABEA was a fraudulent scheme to cheat genuine claimants and that many persons on MECCABEA's register were never party to the original suit. Evidence showed MECCABEA's membership had grown to 1870 persons, yet only 1097 were original claimants.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants' association MECCABEA had the lawful authority to represent the original judgment creditors in the distribution of compensation monies.
  2. Whether the powers of attorney held by the respondents to represent the judgment creditors were valid and enforceable.
  3. Which law firm should be designated to receive and distribute the compensation monies to the beneficiaries.
  4. Whether agreements purportedly entered into by the late attorney Benon Turyamureeba for payment of funders and collection agents were valid or constituted illegal champerty and maintenance.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Suit money to be paid to Mpokya claimants through M/s Mushabe, Munungu & Co. Advocates.
  • Verification process of the 1097 Mpokya claimants to be conducted within one month of receipt of money.
  • Verification to be carried out by the Auditor General, Police, LCs of the area and other relevant officials.
  • Any other persons claiming including lawyers to present claims to the Auditor General for verification and payment.
  • All illegal champerty and maintenance agreements to be avoided during payment.
  • Accountability for payments to be furnished to court within three months.
  • Applicants to pay costs to the respondents and interested parties.

Rules and key headnotes

Powers of Attorney — Validity — Revocation
Powers of attorney which are properly executed, duty stamped and registered remain valid until effectively revoked by all donors; a purported revocation signed by only some donors and including signatures of persons not on the original power of attorney is ineffective.
Powers of Attorney — Lapse on Death — Non-Heritability
Powers of attorney granted to an individual attorney lapse upon the death of that attorney and do not pass to the attorney's heirs or successors; they are not hereditary.
Legal Representation — Right to Change Counsel — Payment Through Lawyers
Judgment creditors have the right to change their legal representation, including for purposes of receiving compensation payments, and cannot be compelled to accept payment through lawyers they no longer instruct, particularly where the previous arrangement resulted in alleged misappropriation of funds.
Champerty and Maintenance — Definition and Application
Champerty is an aggravated form of maintenance constituted by an agreement for the division of the proceeds of litigation between a maintainer and the maintained party; such agreements are illegal, against public policy, and unenforceable under both common law and the Advocates Act.
Champerty — Agreements to Pay Funders from Judgment Proceeds
Agreements purportedly binding judgment creditors to pay portions of their compensation award to funders who were not party to the original litigation constitute illegal champerty and are void and unenforceable, even if entered into by the creditors' attorney.
Fiduciary Duties — Attorneys Acting to Prejudice of Principals
A holder of powers of attorney owes a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests and on the direction of the donors and cannot take advantage of the position to defraud the donors or enter into agreements prejudicial to their interests; such fraudulent transactions are illegal and unenforceable.
Verification of Beneficiaries — Fraud Prevention
Where there is evidence that persons not party to the original litigation have been fraudulently included in a list of beneficiaries to share in compensation awarded to legitimate claimants, the court will order a verification process by independent officials before distribution of funds.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Re Trepca Mines Ltd (1962) 3 All ER 351
  • Shell (U) Ltd & Ors v Rock Petroleum (U) Ltd (Misc. Application No. 645 of 2010 (No. 2))
  • Shell (U) Ltd & Ors v Muwema & Mugerwa Advocates & Solicitors & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2013)
  • Trendtex Trading Corp v Crédit Suisse [1980] 3 All ER 721
  • Giles v Thompson [1993] 3 All ER 321
  • Mkono & Co. Advocates v. J W Ladwa

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tumwijukye Mpirirwe & 10 Others V Lt. Col. Kabareebe David & 13 Others (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 193 (21 March 2019)
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.