Uganda Development Bank v MS Kasirye , Byaruhanga and Company Advocates (Civil Appeal 35 of 94)

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 allowed the appeal. Regulation 8 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations 1977 prevents an advocate from acting as both counsel and witness in the same case, but its breach is not a ground for nullifying proceedings or treating an affidavit as defective; the remedy is for counsel to cease appearing or abandon the evidence. The affidavit supporting the taxation appeal merely summarised the grounds of appeal and gave no evidence, so it fell outside regulation 8. Even if the motion affidavit offended the regulation, co-counsel could have continued the motion. The High Court therefore erred in striking out the appeal and the motion.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court striking-out orders set aside and matter remitted for fresh hearing before another judge

Facts

A dispute arose over the taxation of advocate-client bills of costs between Uganda Development Bank and its advocates, M/S Kasirye Byaruhanga and Co. The Taxing Officer treated a letter addressed to the Bank's Managing Director as a binding agreement on costs and relied on it. The Bank, through counsel Mr. Babigumira, appealed to the High Court under rule 3 of the Taxation of Costs (Appeals and References) Rules, supported by an affidavit setting out the grounds of appeal, and also moved to adduce additional evidence to explain the history of the letter. The respondent advocates objected that the supporting affidavits, sworn by counsel conducting the matter, offended regulation 8 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations 1977, which bars an advocate from appearing where he will be required as a witness. The High Court (Mpagi-Bahigeine, J) upheld the objection and struck out both the appeal and the motion. The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the affidavit supporting the taxation appeal in the High Court offended regulation 8 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations 1977.
2. Whether the affidavit supporting the motion to adduce additional evidence offended regulation 8.
3. What is the proper scope and effect of regulation 8 where an advocate's affidavit is said to contain contentious matters.
4. Whether a breach of regulation 8 renders an affidavit defective so as to justify striking out the proceedings.

Orders

• Appeal to the Supreme Court allowed on each order striking out the appeal and the motion.
• Orders of the High Court striking out the proceedings set aside.
• Records remitted to the High Court to hear and determine both proceedings afresh, preferably before another judge.
• Costs of the appeal to the appellant.
• Costs in the High Court to abide the event of the rehearing.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations 1977 (S.I. No. 79 of 1977) reg.8
• Advocates Act 1970 (No. 22 of 1970) s.61
• Taxation of Costs (Appeals and References) Rules (S.I. 258-6) rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 17

Cases cited (3)

• Odongkara v Kamanda (1968) E.A. 210
• Yunusu Ismail and others v Alex Kanukama (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1987)
• Halsbury's Laws of England 3rd Ed vol 2 para 102, 4th Ed vol. 3 para 1187

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.

• Marwa Properties Ltd v Commissioner Land Registration and Others (Civil Appeal 86 of 2025)

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