Wakilii

Wakanyira John t a Wakanyira & Co Advocates v Zhang Heng Lin alias Henry Lubega (Miscellaneous Application 1038 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 70 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to tax advocate-client bill of costs arising from Civil Suit No. 779 of 2020
Decision
Application granted; leave given to tax advocate-client bill of costs.

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 held that an advocate who has been discharged by a client is entitled to recover reasonable fees for work done up to the point of discharge. Service of an advocate-client bill of costs via WhatsApp is valid where delivery is proved by double blue ticks. Where a respondent does not deny service and instead claims to have paid fees, service is deemed effective. The applicant satisfied the statutory requirements under sections 57 and 58 of the Advocates Act for taxation of the bill of costs.

Outcome

Application granted; leave given to tax advocate-client bill of costs.

Facts

The applicant advocate received instructions to represent the respondent in Civil Suit No. 779 of 2020 on 23 October 2020. The applicant executed the instructions including filing a defence and extracting hearing notices. In September 2023, the applicant discovered the respondent had changed instructions to another law firm. The respondent had not paid any legal fees. The applicant served a bill of costs via WhatsApp on 15 September 2022; the respondent paid UGX 100,000 but defaulted on further payments. The applicant served the bill again on 2 January 2024 via WhatsApp and at the respondent's office. The respondent objected on grounds that the applicant lacked a valid practicing certificate and that he had paid UGX 2 million. The applicant produced practicing certificates for 2020–2023 and denied receiving the claimed payment.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had locus standi to file the application given the respondent's objection regarding the validity of the practicing certificate.
  2. Whether the respondent's affidavit in reply should be disregarded as filed out of time.
  3. Whether the application satisfied the requirements for grant of an order for taxation of advocate-client bill of costs.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicant to present the advocate-client bill of costs for taxation.
  • The respondent shall pay the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocate-Client Costs — Service of Bill of Costs — Electronic Service via WhatsApp
Service of an advocate-client bill of costs via WhatsApp is valid and effective where the sender's device displays double blue ticks indicating delivery and the recipient does not deny receipt.
Advocate-Client Costs — Effect of Withdrawal of Instructions
Withdrawal of instructions by a client does not exempt the client from payment of legal fees for work already done. An advocate who is discharged is entitled to the reasonable value of services rendered up to the point of discharge.
Advocate-Client Costs — Statutory Requirements for Taxation
Under section 63 of the Advocates Act, no suit shall be brought to recover costs due to an advocate until one month after a bill of costs has been delivered in accordance with the statutory requirements. Non-compliance with service requirements does not automatically wipe out the client's liability but each case is determined on its facts.
Affidavit Evidence — Uncontroverted Facts
Where facts are sworn to in an affidavit and are not denied or rebutted by the opposite party, the presumption is that such facts are admitted.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (8)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturers Company Limited v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696
  • Dr. Lam Lagoro v Muni University (Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 007 of 2016)
  • Ondoma Samuel t/a Alaka & Co Advocates v Kana Richard (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2018)
  • Byenkya Kihiika & Co Advocates v Fang Min (Miscellaneous Cause No. 15 of 2022)
  • Peter Jogo Tabu & Co Advocates v Waco (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0030 of 2009)
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 918 of 2021)
  • Peace Barigye v Kiiza Omamteker (Miscellaneous Application No. 2075 of 2022)
  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen (1978) HCB 279

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wakanyira John t a Wakanyira & Co Advocates v Zhang Heng Lin alias Henry Lubega (Miscellaneous Application 1038 of 2024) [2026] UGCommC 70 (9 March 2026)
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.