[2009] UGCommC 2

[2009] UGCommC 2

The court held that the plaintiff, a firm of advocates, cannot enforce professional fees against the defendant in the absence of a bill of costs delivered and taxed or a written agreement for fixed fees. The cheque in question was issued by a third party, Ascot Associate Limited, a non-existent company, and not by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGCommC 2
Parties
Plaintiff: Bitangaro & Co. Advocates; Defendant: Emmanuel Katto
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No. 92 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Advocate Fees, Retainer Agreements, Negotiable Instruments, Cause of Action, Striking Out Pleadings
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Advocate Fees Retainer Agreements Negotiable Instruments Cause of Action Striking Out Pleadings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bitangaro & Co. Advocates

Plaintiff

Emmanuel Katto

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether an advocate can enforce professional fees without a bill of costs or a written agreement for fees.
  2. 2 Whether a cause of action exists against the defendant based on a dishonoured cheque issued by a third party.
  3. 3 Whether the claim discloses any privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff, a firm of advocates, cannot enforce professional fees against the defendant in the absence of a bill of costs delivered and taxed or a written agreement for fixed fees. The cheque in question was issued by a third party, Ascot Associate Limited, a non-existent company, and not by the defendant. There was no privity of contract or evidence of a solicitor-client retainer between the plaintiff and defendant. The negotiable instrument did not constitute a contract between the parties, and the claim failed to disclose any cause of action against the defendant. Accordingly, the suit was struck out under Order 6 Rule 30 for disclosing no cause of action.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed under Order 6 Rule 30 with costs to the defendant.