Wakilii

Walugembe William David v Nagemi & Co. Advocates and Others (Miscellaneous Application 1323 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCFD 10 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application arising from Civil Suit No. 31 of 2023 seeking review of prior ruling and orders regarding counsel's conflict of interest
Decision
Application partly allowed; Mr. Makokha Benron Devon barred from continuing as counsel but ordered to appear as witness; law firm may continue representation through another advocate

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 for review of a prior ruling for lack of evidence and failure to attach the ruling sought to be reviewed. The court held that while the law firm Nagemi & Co. Advocates was not conflicted, its partner Mr. Makokha Benron Devon was personally barred under Regulations 9 and 10 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations from continuing as counsel because he had witnessed the disputed sale agreement and power of attorney, making him a material witness. The court ordered that Devon must testify and be cross-examined, but the firm could continue representation through another advocate.

Outcome

Application partly allowed; Mr. Makokha Benron Devon barred from continuing as counsel but ordered to appear as witness; law firm may continue representation through another advocate

Facts

The applicant brought an application arising from Civil Suit No. 31 of 2023 concerning the estate of the late Gujjula Muzaana. A consent judgment was entered in 2010 in Civil Suit No. 71 of 2007, with a decree extracted in 2020. The 2nd and 3rd respondents, as executors of the estate, subsequently sold estate property (Block 244, plots 5341 and 5342) to the 4th respondent in November 2020. Mr. Makokha Benron Devon of Nagemi & Co. Advocates witnessed both the power of attorney authorizing the sale and the sale agreement itself. The applicant, a beneficiary of the estate, filed Civil Suit No. 31 of 2023 challenging the legality and propriety of these transactions. Nagemi & Co. Advocates represented the 2nd-4th respondents in that suit. The applicant discovered that Devon had witnessed the disputed documents and also that the firm had filed execution applications claiming costs from the estate. The applicant sought to have Devon disqualified as counsel and summoned as a witness.

Issues

  1. Whether the ruling and finding in MA No. 504 of 2023 allowing Mr. Makokha Benron Devon to continue appearing as counsel for the 2nd-4th respondents should be reviewed and set aside.
  2. Whether the 1st respondent is conflicted and cannot ethically and professionally continue appearing as the 2nd to 4th respondents' counsel in subsequent proceedings in Civil Suit No. 31 of 2023.
  3. Whether the 1st respondent's partner, Mr. Makokha Benron Devon, should appear as a witness and be cross-examined by the plaintiffs' counsel regarding matters of the estate of Gujjula Muzaana and relevant documents.
  4. Whether the 5th respondent or any authorized registrar should appear in court as a witness with certified copies of transfer forms and consent applications for the disputed properties.

Orders

  • Application for review of MA No. 504 of 2023 dismissed.
  • The 1st respondent's partner, Mr. Makokha Benron Devon, shall appear as a witness and be cross-examined by the plaintiffs' counsel regarding matters of the estate of Gujjula Muzaana as of 2020 to date and on relevant documents.
  • The Commissioner of Land Registration is a relevant and compellable witness in the case involving estate property.
  • The 1st respondent, as a law firm, is at liberty to continue with the instructions through another advocate other than Makokha Benron Devon.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgments and Orders — Requirements for Valid Application
An application for review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules must identify specific errors and attach the ruling or order sought to be reviewed; a bare request to review and set aside without factual or legal basis and without the ruling on record does not meet the threshold for review.
Legal Profession — Advocates' Professional Conduct — Conflict of Interest
Under Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations, an advocate who has witnessed a transaction and has reason to believe he will be required as a witness in proceedings concerning that transaction is barred from appearing as counsel in those proceedings; this prohibition applies to the individual advocate, not the entire law firm.
Legal Profession — Advocates' Professional Conduct — Fiduciary Relationship
Regulation 10 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations reinforces Regulation 9 by forbidding counsel who had personal knowledge of a matter from acting in a prior capacity to then act as counsel in a subsequent dispute arising from the same transaction, as this constitutes a conflict of interest and impermissible use of the fiduciary relationship.
Evidence — Witness Summons — Material Witnesses
Where an advocate has witnessed documents central to a dispute and the validity of those documents is challenged, that advocate becomes a material witness who should be summoned under Order 16 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules to testify and be subject to cross-examination on the execution and circumstances of those documents.
Land Registration — Commissioner Land Registration as Witness
The Commissioner Land Registration or any officer working under him is a competent witness to produce in court certified copies of documents pertaining to land registration where the court is to determine any issue arising out of a questioned land transaction and transfer.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

  • Ladak Abdulla Muhammad Hussein v Griffiths Isingoma Kakiiza and 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
  • Lwandasa v Kyas Global Trading Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 865 of 2014)
  • Uganda v Ojangole (Criminal Case No. 1 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Walugembe William David v Nagemi & Co. Advocates and Others (Miscellaneous Application 1323 of 2024) [2026] UGHCFD 10 (20 February 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.