The High court in Kampala has dismissed an application by Balondemu, Candia and Wandera Advocates to recover more than Shs 1 billion from Best Kemigisa, the queen mother of Tooro kingdom.
The law firm, led by lawyers Alex Candia and Oundo David Wandera represented in two high-profile cases. The lawyers ran to the High court seeking an advocate-client bill of costs for their services in civil suit number 261 of 2010, where Kemigisa sought to recover Shs 3.831 billion from the late lawyer Bob Kasango, and criminal case no. 726 of 2010, where Kasango was convicted and sentenced.
The lawyers noted that they made a demand notice for professional fees and disbursements of Shs 1,028,430,000 which they said Kemigisa declined to honour claiming that she is not indebted to them. They asked the court to grant them leave to tax the advocate bill of costs.
Kemigisa admitted to instructing the law firm to represent her in the 2010 case for recovery of Shs 3 billion and also to hold a watching brief in a criminal case against Bob Kasango. She said that upon giving the firm instructions, the legal fees to be paid were agreed in advance and she paid in two instalments of Shs 5 million on February 19, 2013 and on April 25, 2013. The law firm was instructed to recover the decretal sum and costs from Kasango.
According to Kemigisa, the law firm did not execute the instructions and up to the time of his death, they had failed to recover the decretal sum. She said the legal fees were paid in advance and she is not indebted to the law firm and they are stopped from claiming any further payments from her.
In response, the lawyers said the alleged payment was for civil suit Number 162 of 2012 Best Kemigisa against Red Pepper Publications Ltd since Red Pepper had tarnished her reputation when they alleged that she had been arrested in the USA with fake dollars. They said Kemigisa then paid instruction fees of Shs 20 million for the Red Pepper case in three instalments of Shs 5m the second instalment was Shs 10 million and the third was of Shs 5 million.
However, Justice Musa Ssekaana ruled that the law firm failed to provide evidence of demanding payment from the judgment debtor, Bob Kasango, or attempting to execute the court’s judgment. The court noted that the law firm’s inaction was inconsistent with their claim for professional fees.
The judge held that the law firm failed to provide evidence of this agreement or any subsequent demands for payment. The court emphasized that advocates should charge clients professional fees by the advocates (remuneration and taxation of costs) regulations, rather than offering services on “loan or credit” to recover later.
In dismissing the application, Ssekaana stated that the law firm’s conduct bordered on professional misconduct and that the court would not aid advocates who fail to charge clients upfront.
“The applicants failed or refused or they seem to have abandoned or they have never bothered to recover until the judgment debtor passed on. There is no evidence on record to show that the applicants ever tried to recover the decretal awards including the costs from the judgment debtor by way of execution before resorting to recover from their client through an advocate-client bill of costs,” said Ssekaana.
The judge said that due to the peculiar circumstances surrounding this case, he declined to grant leave to the applicants to file an advocate-client bill of costs for taxation
“The fee for professional services is the fee which is negotiated between the advocate and the client. When the client first consults with the advocate, the advocate will (or should) explain to his client the basis on which he charges for his services. An advocate who represents a client without charging professional legal fees from a client is undercutting colleagues to attract business. The court should not aid such an advocate who runs to court to try to recover his/her costs which he never charged at the beginning of the relationship,” said Ssekaana.
