[2024] UGHCLD 267

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA TN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA SITTING AT KAMPALA LAND DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES (RENUMERATION AND TAXATION OF COSTS) REGULATIONS,5.1267-4 AND IN THE MATTER OF MAGEZI, IBALE & CO. ADVOCATES AND

## IN THE MATTER OF ADVOCATE/CLIENT BILL OF COSTS MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 16 OF 2O2I

## MAGEZI, IBALE & CO. ADVOCATES............. APPLICANT

#### VERSUS

## 1. LINDA HARRIET CARRINGTON

2. HARRIET KABAGENYI.......... . RESPONDENTS

## BEFORE: HON JUSTICE TADEO ASIIMWE.

#### RULING

The application is made under Section 57,58 & 59 of the Adocates Act and Regulations thereunder, Advocates in (renumeration and taxation of

\ ( Page 1 of 6

r

costs) Regulations, Section 98 CPA, Order 52rl and 3 of the civil procedure Act and seeking orders that; -

- l. That the clients/respondents pay to the applicant the outstanding professional charges of Ugshs. 12,787,6001: (Uganda shillings twelve million seven hundred eighty-seven thousand six hundred) and 15,125,000/: (Fifteen million one hundred and twenty-five thousand shillings) as contained in the two Advocates - client Bills of Costs dated291712020 and costs. - The grounds upon which it is premised are contained in the notice of motion and the affidavit in support by Mr. John Magezi dated 12th February, 2021. 10

Briefly the grounds are that; -

- ^I. That in July 2013, the clients instructed the advocate to proceed with taxation of the bill of costs and opposing an appeal airsing from Misc. Cause No.74 of 2009. - 2. That the advocate acted diligently and strictly in accordance with the client's instructions. - 3. That the clients/respondents have failed, refused, ignored and/neglected to pay a fee note for legal services duly submitted to them by the applicant at the respondents' express request.

Page 2 of 6

t

( ,('

- 4. That it is in the interest ofjustice that the clients/respondents be ordered to pay the applicant the professional charges contained in the advocate-clients bill of costs. - ⁵ The matter proceeded exparte as the respondents never filed a reply'

### REPRESENTATION.

At the hearing the applicant was represented by counsel Magezi John who made oral submissions hence this ruling.

#### SUBMISSIONS:

- In his oral submissions, counsel for the applicant argued that his firm of advocates represented the respondent on their instructions as per annextures "A"-"F" to the affidavit in support of the application' That as advocates they performed their professional work in furtherance of the instructions given by the respondent in this Court and the Court of Appeal. That two bills of costs were served to the l't respondent via her registered 15 10 - email as per annextures "F I " and "F2" . That these are the very emails she used to communicate with the applicant firm during the hearing of the subject matter in Court of Appeal in2019 as per PEI '

In counsel,s view, all the annextures of the application show that the ²⁰ Advocate-Client relationship exists and no payment has been ^m eto

Page 3 o

r

r-

date. Counsel concluded by inviting this Court to grant an order for Taxation of Advocate-Client Bill in respect to two bills as presented.

#### RESOLUTION.

- Arising from the pleadings and Counsel's submissions, the issues for Court determination are, - 5 - D Whether there exists an Advocate-Client relationship and if yes, whether professional work was performed - ii) Whether the professional work remains unpaid. - iii) What remedies available to the applicant.

I will begin with Issue l.

According to the Advocates Act Sections 57 & 58, the applicant is required to satisfy Court on the balances of probabilities that there existed

the Advocate - client relationship, that services were rendered, that ^a signed bill of costs was served on the client, that 30 days have lapsed without client and advocate agreeing or paying the proposed amount. This position was emphasized in the case of ondoma Samuel t/a Alaka & 15

## Co. Advocates V Kana Richard MA 16 of 2018.

Therefore, by implication, Advocate-Client relationship originates from instructions by a client which may be oral or written as per the case (Peter Jogo Tabu & Co. Advocates V Waco Fred MA 30 of 2009). n the 20

Page 4 of 5

(

(

cuffent application under paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support, the applicant clearly states that he received instructions from Linda Harriet carrington and Harriet Kabagenyi, the clients/respondents herein above to represent them in taxation of a bill of costs awarded to them and defending civil Appeal No. 61 of 2009 both arising from Misc. cause No.

74 of2009.

The applicant under paragraph 3 shows evidence ofchange ofAdvocates from Enoth Mugabi & Co. Advocates and Solicitors who had represented the respondent in trial court. In paragraphs 5,6 & 7 of the affidavit in support of the application, the applicant demonstrates the work he performed when he attended several court hearings on the furtherance of instructions given.

This evidence is clear that the applicant was indeed given instructions to represent the respondents and professional work was done as per the cited cases handled. Therefore, the first issue is resolved in the positive. 15

effected for the work done by the applicant and the bills were bro 20 tto On issue 2, the applicant has demonstrated under paragraphs 8 and 9 that two bills of costs were sent to the respondent and has been no payment or agreement to pay for the services rendered. The communications are contained in annextures "El"- "E3" and "F7"- "F2". In the absence of evidence to the contrary, this Court is satisfied that no payment has been

Page 5 of 6

(

r

the attention of the respondent. This issue is equally answered in the positive.

Issue 3 concerns remedies to the applicant.

5 Having resolved the first two issues in the favor of the applicant, it is therefore follows that the applicant is entitled for leave to present his bills for taxation.

Accordingly, leave is granted to the applicant to present his bills. As regards costs ofthis application section 27 provides that costs follow the event unless good cause to the contrary is proved. I have not found good cause to deny the applicant costs which are hereby granted' 10

In conclusion, I find merit in this application and the same is here by allowed with the following orders; - 15

- 1. Applicant is granted leave to present the Advocate- client Bill of Costs for taxation by the taxing master of this Court' - 2. Costs f the applicatio shall be paid by the resPondents'

20 \ .r. !.....

TADEO A IIM JUDGE

tsnU2024.