Ms Kimanje Nsibambi Advocates v Tamale and Another (Misc Cause 145 of 2020) [2024] UGHCLD 168 (24 June 2024)

Full Case Text

#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

#### IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

### ILAND DrvlSlONl

#### MISC ELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 145 OF 2O2O

# IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVOCATES (REMUNERATION AND TAXATION OF COSTS REGULATIONS) 51,267 - 4, AS AMENDED

## IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR TAXATION OF AN ADVOCATE - CLIENT BILL OF COSTS

#### M/S KIMANJE NSIBAMBI ADVOCATES APPLICANT

1. TAMALE ROSE

2. TAMALE MOSES KAWOMBE RESPONDENTS

#### BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE P. BASATA -WASSWA

#### RULING

Representation

Mr. Wandera Moses for the Applicant.

Mr. Kimara Arnold Nogan and Mr. Webisa Dennis for the Respondents.

lntroduction:

trl This is a Ruling on a Miscellaneous Cause brought by motion under secs.57,58

and 50 of the Advocates Act1, and sec. 98 of the Civil Procedure Act2 and order

52Rules 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 51 71l.

tl4^hhlrt^^^^-4 tqll

1Cap 267 2cap 71 pgl

- 12) The Applicant: M/s Kimanie Nsibambi Advocates, shall hereinafter, for convenience, be referred to as: 'the Firm'. - t3l The Respondents: Ms. Tamale Rose and Mr' Tamale Moses Kawombe, who state that they are holders of letters of Administration to the Estate of their late father Tamale Antoni, shall hereinafter, for convenience, be referred to as: 'the Tamales'. - 14) The Firm seeks for Orders: - i) That leave be granted to Tax their Advocate Client Bill of Costs (BOO - ii) That the costs of this application be provided for.

#### Grounds relied on bV the Applicant; 'the Firm':

- t5l The substance of the affidavit in support of the application brought by the Firm, and sworn by its Managing Partner: Mr. Peter Kimanje Nsibambi, is: - i) That together with Mrs. Resty Nakayenga Kiguli and I/r. Moses Mpanga, they were instructed by the Tamales, by a Power of Attorney dated .l3th lune 2016, to act on their behalf in all matters relating to the estate of their late father: Tamale Antoni. - ii) That the said instructions from the Tamales were in respect of a list of properties stated in the said Power of Attorney, together with other properties not listed therein, but which belonged to the estate of the late Tamale Antoni.

#### pEZ Ar(r[h,t,^ ^"^-t ]qIt

- iii) That the properties listed in the Power of Attorney are: - . Land at Kitintale, Luzira in Nakawa Kampala District Block 243 Plot 1348 measuring 12 aqes. - . Land at Bulemezi, Block 260 at Kayunga Kireku measuring B square miles formerly registered in the name of Tamale Antoni - . Land at Bubere, Buvuma Block 19 Plot 2 - . Land at Kaulube, Mubende Singo Block 698 Plot 3 - iv) That the Tamales undertook to pay to them (the Firm), by either cash or in kind; 107o of any transactions and or sales made. - v) That the Firm offered legal services to the Tamales and Applied for a special certificate of title in respect of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 243 Plot 1348 at Luzira, Nakawa Division measuring approximately 12 acres, including making searches at the land office and drafting agreements. - vi) That on February 12,2020 the Firm made a demand against the Tamales for payment of UGX. 890,900,000 /= (Eight Hundred Ninety Million, Nine Hundred Thousand shillings only), accompanied by their Bill of costs, which the latter received on March 24,2020. - vii) That the amount demanded is the monetary value of 1.3475 acres of land which is 10% o'f 14.375 acres of the land comprised in Kyadondo Block

# Ps 3 /kqbl^Jr\^^"""^4,qlL

243 Plot 1348 at Luzira, and for other legal services rendered to the Tamales by the Firm

viii) That the Tamales have never heeded to their said demand for payment and Bill of costs.

#### Reply by the Respondents; 'the Tamales':

- t6l ln answer, the Tamales opposed the application. The substance of their affidavits and supplementary affidavits in reply, and in sur - rejoinder, is - i) That the Bill of costs filed by the Firm is defective, is barred by law and is an illegality - ii) That the application is void at law - iii) That no Client- Advocate relationship exists, nor has ever existed between them and the Firm. That they have never issued instructions to, or engaged or retained the legal services of the Firm in any matters relating to land belonging to the estate of the late Tamale Antoni - iv) That prior to, and during their engagement with Mrs. Resty Nakayenga Kiguli and lv1r. lvloses Mpanga, they never met any lawyer from the Firm, and they have never instructed or engaged the Firm to render any legal services to them, nor the estate that they administer - v) That in 2016, they agreed to issue to Mrs. Resty Nakayenga Kiguli and lr,4 r Moses Mpanga a Power of Attorney, and requested them to have the Power of Attorney prepared. That Mrs. Resty Nakayenga Kiguli and Mr

ps'l [rq\*J"^^"^.^l alt

Moses Mpanga presented to them a Power of Attorney prepared by the Firm, without their involvement, which they signed

- vi) That by that Power of attorney dated 13th June 2016, they appointed Mrs. Resty Nakayenga Kiguli and Mr. Moses Mpanga to act on their behalf on all matters pertaining to the estate of their late father. - vii) That under clause 1 of the Power of Attorney, it was included that the Donees execute their duties with the Firm. - viii) That after execution of the Power of Attorney, they have never held any meeting nor discussions with the Firm, and have never executed any document with it, nor issued to it any instructions to provide legal services to the said estate, nor did they make any undertaking to render any form of payment to it. That a lawyer of the Firm called Peter Kimanje N sibambi only signed as a witness to the said Power of Attorney. - ix) That under the Power of Attorney, there is no clause contracting the Firm to render any legal services, nor any specific clause or undertaking to remunerate it, as alleged. - x) That the said Power of Attorney were long revoked by a revocation deed dated 24th .luly 2018 before the Donees had carried out any instructions under the terms of the Power of Attorney, nor executed their mandate therein, nor furnished to them any proceeds from any transaction. - xi) That any claim for remuneration by the Firm is unfounded. Any remuneration for transactions, if any, was a duty of the Donees under the Power of Attorney. That the letters referred to by the Firm were issued

# fuqrr0 r,n-,"^^-r A[1 pg.5

without their authority, instructions, knowledge nor consent, and were erroneous

- xii) That with the aid of lr,4/s Kimara Advocates & Consultants, they applied for the assuance of a special certificate of title for the land comprised in Block 243 Plot 1348 at Luzira, Nakawa. That during the application process, they discovered that their Attorneys: Mrs. Resty Nakayenga Kiguli and lvl r. Mpanga Moses, with the aid of the Firm, had lodged a caveat over the suit land. That by a correspondence by the Firm; marked as'R5'to the affidavit in reply dated 29th July 2019, that was written to M/s Kimara Advocates & Consultants, the Firm unequivocally stated and affirmed that Mrs. Resty Nakayenga Kiguli and Mr. Mpanga lvloses, are their clients. - That they (Tamales) have no association with, nor any Advocate client relationship with the Firm. x iii)

#### Rejo inder bv the Applicant. 'the Firm'

- 111 The Firm rejoined: - i) That the Application is proper, tenable and competent before this Honorable Cou rt. - ii) That the Affidavits in reply contain falsehoods, are incompetent and rm proper.

l,tV',(rr/Jt^2,^,""^ a ltl 1,

p8. 6

- ii) That the affidavit in reply of the 1'r Respondent is unnecessary and oppressively long. - iii) That they were instructed by the Tamales under the Power of Attorney dated i3th June 2016, and are entitled to .107o in cash or in kind for their legal services rendered in respect of the property comprised in Block 243 Plot 1348 at Luzira, Kitintale, at Nakawa as the lawyers mentioned in the said Power of Attorney. - iv) That the Power of Attorney were revoked on 24th )uly 2018 after they had executed the instructions, and they seek legal fees for the legal services offered before the said revocation of the Power of Attorney. - v) That they applied for the issuance of a special certificate of title and the registration of the Tamales thereon, and the same was issued to the Tamales who have since sub-divided the land into several plots. - At the hearing of this application, court directed that the Preliminary objections raised by the Tamales in paragraph 4 of their affidavit in reply, and by the Firm in paragraph 3 of their affidavit in re..loinder, be determined together with the other issues before this court. t8l

The preliminary objections are to the effect that:

1. By the Tamales: That the Bill of costs is defective, barred by law and is an express illegality that offends the Advocates Act, Cap. 267, and that the application is void at law.

# pE.7 nlqrrljra-"-.. < tq[f - 2. Bythe Firm: That the affidavit in reply and the supplementary affidavit in reply contain obvious falsehoods, are incompetent and improper before the Court and should be struck off. - tel Upon an oral application by the Firm's Counsel, under Order 19 Rule (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, this court directed further that the deponents of the Affidavits in reply: N4s. Tamale Rose and Mrs. Resty Nakayenga Kiguli, be crossexamined on their averments. They were cross-examined.

## lss ues.

- tlOl The following issues emerge for the court's determination: - 1. Whether the application is competent before this court? - 2. Whether an Advocate Client relationship exists between the Firm and the Tamales? - 3. Whether the Tamales instructed the Firm as alleged, and if so, whether the Firm executed the instructions? - 4. Whether there is an agreement for remuneration between the Tamales and the Firm? - 5. Whether the Firm is entitled to have its Bill of costs (Annexture 'Q' to the affidavit in suDport of their application) taxed?

![](0__page_7_Picture_9.jpeg)

pg8

# Submissions by Counsel on Preliminary obiections

- t11l The Respondent's Counsel Mr. Kimara raised three (3) Preliminary objections, the second of which went to the substance of the case. I will therefore deal first with the other two (2) obiections, and if need be, address the remaining objection. - 112) N,4 r. Kimara's first ob jection is that the applicant the Firm is a non-existent legal entity. He argued that the application is fatally defective. That it should have been brought in the names of Mr. Peter Kimanje Nsibambi T/A M/s Kimanje Nsibambi & Co. Advocates, and not the way it was brought. - n3l ln answer, Mr. Wandera the Firm's Counsel; argued that the Firm: 'Mls Kimanje Nsibambi Advocates' was registered under the Business Names Registration Act on April4, 2005 as per a certificate of Registratjon marked'A'to his submissions' That the Firm was duly licensed and approved by the Law Council of Uganda to practice law and offer legal services to clients, with a certificate of Approval of Chambers. - 114) Mr. Kimara 's second objection is that the Power of Attorn ey that the Firm seeks to rely on as a basis for remuneration cannot legally be construed as an agreement. That the Firm was not a party to it, and only drew it and signed it as a witness. That no contractual remuneration can be derived from it. And, that if however, the Power of Attorney were to be construed as an agreement, then the same is not enforceable for its failure to comply with the requirements

### of Sec. 50 of the Advocates Act.

fr\*4n1J,,"",."^ -f l,lt[f pg.9

- t15l Mr. Wandera answered to the 2nd objection that section 50 (1) & (2) (a) of the Advocates Act does not bar the Firm from recovering fees for the legal services they offered to the Tamales even where the said fees do not amount to 10%' - li6l Mr. Wandera further argued that whether or not there is an agreement for remuneration, that does not affect the amount of, or any rights or remedies for the recovery of any costs payable by the client. That the Firm has no remuneration agreement with the Respondents and they are not necessarily suing to recover the 1oolo as stated in the Power of Attorney. That they are suing to recover their legal fees and costs for the legal services offered to the Tamales before they terminated their said instructions. That they are not claiming fees based on a non-registered remuneration agreement.

# Decision of this Court on Preliminary Objection No 1

- l17l The lsrobjection raised is one of mixed fact and law. lt is not purely of law' As such, it ought to have been raised in the Respondents' pleadinqs and not at the stage of submissions. To wit: it ought to have been raised in the affidavits in answer to the application to enable the Applicant respond appropriately As it were, Mr. Wandera; learned Counsel for the Firm, produced evidence from the Bar by attaching as annexture'A'to his written submissions, a certificate of Registration of the Firm: lr,4/s Kimanje Nsibambi Advocates dated April 4th 2005' - tl8l ln my view this objection is baseless. Mr. Kimara did not refer court to any document nor to any legislation. His objection is neither supported by evidence, nor is it backed by any Law. The onus was on him and the Pg lo r\*cir"lJ r a"^"^'-r att

Respondents to demonstrate a contrary position from that shown by the certificate of Registration produced by Mr. Wandera, albeit from the Bar. This court shall therefore presume, prima facie, that the Firm is duly registered.

- nel Under Sec. 57 of the Advocates AG actions to recover costs envisaged under the Advocates Act3 may be due to an Advocate or to a Law Firm as the case may be. The present action brought in the name of the Firm is thus properly brought, and is not defective, as alleged. - t20l The 1st objection is accordingly overruled.

# Decis ion of this Court on Preliminary Objection No..l

l21l Before laddress this objection, it is important that lbegin by laying down, verbatim, the salient parts of the Power of Attorney dated .lune 13, 2016 The Power of AttorneY reads:

#### THE REPBLIC OF UGANDA

#### THE REGISTRATION OF TITLES ACT (CAP 230)

### SPECIAL POWERS OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS MAY COME, that bv the Power of Attornev, we, TAMALE MOSES KAWOMBE (SON) AND TAMALE ROSE (DAUGHTER), the Administrators of the estate of the late TAMALE ANTONI vide Administration Cause No. HCT -00-7D-AC 471 0l 2009. Acopyisattached,ofClOKimanleNsibambiAdvocatesP. O. BoxT2l0T,KampalaDOHEREBY nominate appoint and ordain MRS. RESry NAKAYENGA KIGULI and MR. MOSES MPANGA C/O Operation Wealth Creation, P. O. Box 34150 to do and execute the followinq

.1. To act on our behalf in all matters relating to the estate of the late TAMALE ANTONI formerly of Luzira, Nakawa Kampala District in respect of land comprised in the list below together with any other property (s) that formerly belonged to the late TAMALE ANTONI that are not

Ir((rt,^l,^^"^^^ 'f ?qlf

3cap. 267 of the Laws of Uganda PS il

listed herein but later discovered and to execute this work with M/s Kimanje Nsibambi Advocates.

- 2. To sign and execute all documents and instruments on Ourbehalfand take all such steps as may be necessary or expedient for giving effect to these powers including selling and / or dlsposing off the said property. - 3. ... - 4. Io pay 3Qo/o of any transaction and or sale made erther by cash or in kind as follows - a) 107o to the Donees - b) 107o to the Lawyers - c) 10% to the Brokers

## AND lT lS HEREBY DECLARED that ...

### LIST OF PROPERTIES

| 1 | Land at Kitintale, Luzira in Nakawa Kampala District i.e, Block 243 Plot 1348 | |---|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | | | 3 | | | 4 | |

lN WITNESS WHEREOF we have hereunto set our hands on this 13th day of June 2016'

SIGNED by the said

- 1. TAMALE MOSES 5tgnature appended and phone No 0788429442 inserted) - 2. TAMALE ROSE (tgnature appended and phone No. 0772017728 lnserted). DONORS

ln the presence of /Pr TER KlMANIE N'/BAM1/ signaturc / name appended and ttamp afrxed). WITNESS

### SIGNED by

MRS RESTY NAKAYENGA KIGULI Gtgnature appended and phone No. 0752826399 inserted)

## MR. MOSES MPANGA

# C/O OPERATION WEALTH CREATION

(tgnaturc appended and phone No. 0779604969 inselted) DONNEES

ln the presence of /PFTER KlMAN.lE N'/BAMBI stgnature/name appended and ttamp affixed). WITNESS

#### BEFORE ME

(Notan/'s stqnature and sea/ afftxed)

# ADVOCATE / NOTARY PUBLIC

DRAWN BY: Klmanie Nsibambi Advocates

pc. 12 #rslhhj \*^"^ ^-l t.t{tf

- 1221 On the one hand, the Firm contends that it derived instructions from the Tamales on the basis of the said Power of Attorney. On the other hand, the Tamales, who do not deny executing the Power of Attorney, contend that the Power of Attorney was prepared without their involvement. That it was only presented to them for signing by lr/rs. Resty Nakayenga Kiguli and Mr. Moses Mpanga' - t23l They (theTamales) further contend that by the Power of Attorney they appointed lvlrs. Resty Nakayenga Kiguli and Mr. lr/oses Mpanga, but did not appoint the Firm to act on their behalf on all matters pertaining to the estate of their late father. - 124) lnterestingly, in an unusual twist and change of posture, the Firm's Counsel; lvlr' wandera conceded in his submissions; 'that his c/ient has no remunerat/on agreement with the famales, and that the latter was not necessari/y suing to recover 10% as stated in the Power of Attorneyl This new position was contrary to item No. 1 of the Firm's Bill of Cosb, and contrary to their pleadingsa - 125) Nevedheless, I entirely agree with Mr. Kimara that the said Power of Attorney cannot be construed as an agreement let alone an enforceable agreement within the meaning of sections 48 and 51 of the Advocates AcL - 126l Section 48 of the Act provides for remuneration for non-contentious business by way of 'an agreement'which may stipulate remuneration by a gross sum, or

ruflufiJru""^ ^r r+[6

&#x27;See paragraphs 1, 2 & 3 of the Firm's motion and paragraphs 2, 3 & 4 of the its affidavit in support' pg. 13

by commission or percentage, or by salary or otherwise, and may, or may not include disbursements, as the case may be.

- l27l Further, Section 51 (1) of the Act specifies four (4) mandatory requirements that must be met before any document is treated as'an enforceable agreemenf under section 48 of the Act. The four requirements are: - i) That the agreement must be in writing, - ii) That the agreement must be signed by the person to be bound by it' - iii) That the agreement must contain a certificate signed by a notary public totheeffectthatthepersonboundbyithadexplainedtohimorherthe nature of the agreement and had appeared to understand the agreement, - iv)Thatacopyofsuchcertificatein(iii)above,issenttothesecretaryofthe Law Council by prepaid registered post - t28l cleady, the said Power of Attorney, fails to meet the last two mandatory requirements specified under section 51 (1) of the Act. There is no evidence that such certificate by a Notary public was ever made nor sent to the Law council. - l2gl ln addition, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Kimara, the said Power of Attorney does not pass the test of being bn agreemen/l:FJfitteen the Tamales and the Firm. - t30l A Power of Attorney is an instrument in writing that specifies a Donor (the Principal)ontheonehand,andaDonee(theagent)ontheotherhand'lt - P6. 14 ff..111hli],^/r^" ^^l ?aU, ' creates a fiduciary relationship between the Donor (s) and the Donee (s), by which the former gives to the latter power and authority to act on his / her behall name and power in respect to specific, and or general matters' Such authority is conferred 'within the four corners of the instrument either in express terms or by necessary imPlication'. As Per the Decisions of Katureebe, JSC and Kanyeiham ba, JSC in Fred rick J. K Zaabwe v. Orient Bank Ltd & 5 Ors5

See a similar definition in Black's Law Dictionanf.

- l31l ln this present case, the Donors (the Principals) of the said Power of Attorney are; Mr. Tamale Moses Kawombe jointly with Ms. Tamale Rose, and the Donees (the Agents) are: Mrs. Resty Nakayenga Kiguli jointly with Mr. Moses Mpanga' The Firm is neither the Donor nor the Donee. The Power of Attorney therefore cannot be described or construed as an agreement between the Donors and the Firm. - l32l For the reasons given, the 2nd objection is sustained. lt is my Ruling that the said Power of Attorney is neither an agreement nor is it enforceable under section 48 of the Act. - l33l lwill now turn to determine the remaining issues, save issue No.4 which has already been answered

frgrJi,^ n"" n,.r ,qft

5sccA No. 04 of 2006 6gth ed. at page 1290. pg. 15

## Issues Nos. 2, 3 & 5: (addressed jointly):

-Whether an Advocate – Client relationship exists / existed between the Firm and the Tamales?

-Whether the Tamales instructed the Firm as alleged, and if so, whether the Firm executed the instructions?

-Whether the Firm is entitled to have its Bill of Costs (Annexture 'Q' to the affidavit in support of their application) taxed?

The definition of 'a Client' is laid down in the interpretation section 1 of the [34] Advocates Act7 to include:

'any person who, as a principal or on behalf of another, or as a trustee or personal representative, or in any other capacity, has power, express or implied, to retain or employ, and retains or employs, or is about to retain or employ, an advocate and any person who is or may be liable to pay an advocate any costs'.

(Underlining added).

**Black's Law Dictionary8** also defines 'a client' as: $[35]$

> 'A person or entity that employs a professional for advice or help in that professional's line of work'

(Underlining added)

From the above definitions, the questions to be determined are: whether the [36] Firm has demonstrated in its motion and supporting affidavits that the Tamales have ever retained or employed (instructed) it, and that they are liable to pay to

Maramil amme 24/6

&lt;sup>7 Cap 267 of the Laws of Uganda 8 9th ed. at page 289 pg. 16

it 'costs' for any work done under their instructions? To wit 'CosE' include fees, charges, disbursements, expenses and remuneratione.

- t37l Learned Counsel Mr. Wandera argued for the Firm that: 'by the said Power of Attorney the Tamales instructed the Donees of the Power of Attorney together with the Firm, to execute several instructions in respect of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 243 Plot 1348 at Luzira, Nakawa Division, among other properties that form the estate of the late Tamale Antoni. - l38l ln answer, learned counsel Mr. Kimara argued for the Tamales: that the Firm failed to demonstrate that an Advocate - client relationship existed between them and the Tamales. That therefore the Bill of costs against the Tamales is unfounded, and that the present application cught to fail. - t39l lt is trite, as already shown in paragraphs t30l & I31l of this Ruling, that a Donee of a Power of Attorney is the Agent of the Donor (the Principal) thereof' lt therefore follows that 'by the said Power of Attorney granted by the Tamales to Mrs. Resty Nakayenga Kiguli and Mr. Moses Mpanga, the Tamales made Mrs Nakayenga and Mr. Mpanga their Agents in respect to the properties listed in the Power of Attorney. lndeed, as perthewording in the Power of Attorney, all deeds, things and matters done, executed, made and given by the said agents, were done, executed, made and given on behalf of the Tamales (Donors), and in their names, until July 2d 2018 when the said Power of Attorney were revoked.

M(rtl) ^.^^^^^.{ il4h

sSee the interpretation section 1of the Advocates Act pg. 1i

t4ol Upon carefully perusing all the affidavits for and against this application, together with all the attachments thereto, it is my finding that through their said Agents, the Tamales did in fact employ / instruct the Firm to carry out legal work in respect of the property comprised in Kyadondo Block 243 Plot 1348 at Luzira, Nakawa Division.

(Also refer to Requlation 2 (1) of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Bqq{elloqlo that recognizes instructions from Clients to Advocates through their duty authorized agents).

- t41l The basis for my f inding in [40] above is: - i) The instructions by the Tamales, through their Agents, is contained in the last sentence of clause 1 in the said Power of Attorney. That sentence is to the effect that their agents should execute the work assigned, with the Firm. - ii) An affirmation of their said instructions by the Tamales when they both appended their signatures to a number of documents drawn by the Firm; including an application for the issuance of a special certificate of title for the property (Plot 1348) at Luzira. See Annexture'E'to the affidavit in support of the N/'lotion.

I.(crhhj^,a ^ ^^l ?^ttL

ro s.l267-2 pg. 18

- iia) The testimonies in courtllof Ms. Tamale Rose and Mrs. Nakayenga in which Mrs. Nakayenga stated that whenever Ms. Tamale wanted anything done for her on her properties, she (Nakayenga) would take her to the offices of the Firm that were next to her (Nakayenga's) own offices. Her said statement was corroborated by the admission by Ms. Tamale that the signature that appears on the application for the issuance of a special certificate of title for the said property (Plot 1348) at Luzira, was her signature. - 142) lt follows therefore, that the Tamales are liable to pay to the Firm the 'costs': (fees, charges, disbursements, expenses and remuneration) due to the Firm for the work that the latter did for them. - t43l The Firm demonstrated to this Court that indeed it did work for the Tamales. lt pointed court to its work shown in Annextures 'E','F' & 'G' to the affidavit in support of its motion. To wit; an application for the issuance of a special certificate of title for the said property (Plot 1348) at Luzira and the registration of the names of the Tamales unto that property. - l44l The Firm further demonstrated that its Bill of Costs, accompanied by their letter signed by one of the Partners in the Firm: Mr. Peter Kimanje Nsibambi, was duly served on and received by the Tamales in ample time, in compliance with the requrrements of section 57 of the Advocates Act.

## [.({r blJl-',n"",^1 ]'tlb

11Cross-Examination of Ms. Tamale Rose (the 1't Respondent) and Mrs. Nakayenga was taken under the provisions of Order 19 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. ps. 19

- l45l ln the result, issues 2, 3 & 5 are answered in the affirmative. The Firm is entitled to be paid 'costs': (fees, charges, disbursements, expenses and remuneration) for the said work it did for the Tamales. - t46l For the avoidance of any doub! having found in this Ruling that there was no Remuneration agreement between the Firm: M/s Kimanje Nsibambi Advocates and the Tamales, and also considering that no transaction or sale was ever entered into as was envisaged by the Tamales under clause 4 of the Power of Attorney granted to the Donees therein, the Firm is NOT entitled to 10% ofthe value of the property, as claimed. - Wn For the further avoidance of any doub( the agreement dated July 18,2016 between the Agents of the Tamales and a one Mr. Mukalazi Kaloli12, is neither a sale, nor a transaction.

The subject matter of that Agreement was that Mr. Mukalazi Kaloli would process and deliver up to the Agents of the Tamales, a Special Certificate of title in respect of the property: (Plot 1348) at Luzira' Considering that in this present application; the Firm is claiming costs for the same worL in respect of the same Plot it follows that Mr. Mukalazi Kaloli did not carry out any wo\* under that agreement, unless he himself can demonstrate otherwise in another suit.

fkqhl^J ^^^.'\*l Ltt'lt

12Attached as Annexture 'D'to the Firm's affidavit in support ps. 20

Suffice it to add that the remuneration and or costs envisaged under that agreement, were subiect to the successful completion of a sale transaction' No evidence was shown that there was such a completed sale / transaction.

## Decision and Orders of this Court

- [48] ln the result, this application partially succeeds, and is partially allowed in the following terms: - 1. Leave is hereby granted to Tax the Advocates Clients Bill of costs with the proviso that the Taxation shall be done on the basis of that prescribed in the Fifth (5th) Schedule under Regulation 14 (e) and 15 of the Advocates (Remuneration & Taxation of Costs) Regulationsl3, as Amended. - 2. The Applicants are awarded 50olo of the Costs of this Application on account that their application succeeds only partially. This award carries interest at 60/o per annum from the date of this Ruling until the date payment is made in full'

I so Order;

/l-fchil,^^,,^,^^{ 4(6

## P. BASATA. WASSWA JUDGE

)une 24, 2024

Ruling delivered electronically via email to the parties and uploaded on the Judiciary ECCMIS Portal Email to. kimanie nsibambiadvoc@yahoo.com for the Applicants, and to info@ kimara advocates.com for the Res pondents

ps. z\

13s.l 123 of 1982 as amended by the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of costs) (Amendment) Regulations,2018.