The High Court in Kampala has dismissed Balondemu, Candia, and Wandera Advocates’ UGX 1.03 billion claim against Best Kemigisa, the Toro Queen Mother.

The law firm had sought payment for representing Kemigisa in two high-profile cases dating back to 2010.

Background

The law firm, led by lawyers Alex Candia and Oundo David Wandera, sought to recover professional fees for its role in Civil Suit No. 261 of 2010, in which Kemigisa aimed to recover UGX 3.83 billion from the late lawyer Bob Kasango. They also represented her in Criminal Case No. 726 of 2010, in which Kasango was convicted and sentenced.

The lawyers claimed they issued a demand notice for professional fees and disbursements totalling UGX 1,028,430,000, which Kemigisa allegedly declined to pay. They petitioned the court for permission to tax an advocate-client bill of costs.

Kemigisa’s Defence

Kemigisa admitted engaging the firm in 2010 for civil and criminal cases. However, she maintained that legal fees were pre-agreed and settled through two instalments of UGX 5 million in 2013.

She argued that the firm had failed to recover the decretal sum from Kasango, as instructed, and was therefore not entitled to additional payments.

Kemigisa contended that the UGX 10 million payment referenced by the lawyers was for a separate defamation case against Red Pepper Publications Ltd, not the Kasango cases.

Justice Musa Ssekaana ruled that the law firm failed to provide evidence of efforts to recover the judgement debt from Bob Kasango or any subsequent demands for payment before his death. The court noted that the firm’s inaction contradicted its claims for professional fees.

“The applicants failed or refused to recover the decretal awards from the judgement debtor before resorting to demanding payment from their client. There is no evidence they attempted execution of the judgment,” said Justice Ssekaana.

The court further criticised the firm’s failure to document its fee agreement with Kemigisa or comply with the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.

Justice Ssekaana described the firm’s conduct as bordering on professional misconduct, stating that lawyers must charge fees at the outset rather than offering services on “loan or credit.”

“An advocate who represents a client without charging upfront fees undermines their colleagues and the profession. The court cannot aid such an advocate who later seeks to recover costs through litigation,” he added.

The court declined to grant the firm leave to file an advocate-client bill of costs. Justice Ssekaana emphasised that professional fees should be negotiated transparently at the beginning of the client-advocate relationship, and failure to do so cannot justify retrospective claims.

The dismissal of the application underscores the importance of adherence to legal and professional standards in handling client engagements.