KAMPALA, Uganda | The High Court of Uganda has dismissed an application by lawyers Alex Candia and Oundo David Wandera, who sought to recover UGX 3.8 billion in legal fees from Queen Mother Best Kemigisha. The court ruled that the claim was unfounded due to the lack of a clear agreement on the fees and the lawyers’ failure to pursue the judgment award from the opposing party before turning to their client.

At the center of the dispute was the lawyers’ claim that they had represented the Queen Mother in two high-profile cases involving the recovery of UGX 3.8 billion from the late lawyer Bob Kasango. The lawyers, Alex Candia and Oundo David Wandera, argued that their services, spanning over a decade, justified the hefty bill.  The lawyers argued that in the civil case, they successfully obtained a judgment awarding Kemigisha UGX 3.8 billion, while in the criminal case, they held a watching brief that contributed to the conviction of lawyer Bob Kasango for fraud.

Kemigisha disputed the claim, asserting that she had fully settled her legal fees in advance with two payments totaling UGX 10 million. She further argued that the lawyers had failed to recover the judgment sum from Kasango, who later passed away, and that their failure to act in this regard precluded them from claiming additional fees.

Justice Ssekaana Musa, in his ruling, found no evidence of an agreement for the fees the lawyers sought to claim. He criticized the practice of offering legal services on credit without clear terms, describing it as a potential professional misconduct.

“The applicants appear to have been offering professional legal services on ‘loan or credit,’ which they would recover later with the assistance of court,” Justice Ssekaana remarked. He emphasized that the law requires advocates to be transparent about their fees and warned against the practice of retroactively inflating claims.

The court also highlighted the lawyers’ inaction in recovering the judgment sum, observing that there was no evidence of efforts to execute the judgment against Kasango or his estate. “The applicants appear to have abandoned their duty to recover the decretal awards, which undermines their claim for additional legal fees,” Justice Ssekaana remarked.

In dismissing the application, the court emphasized the importance of transparency in fee arrangements and professionalism in executing client instructions. The decision emphasizes the need for advocates to establish clear terms of engagement and diligently pursue their clients’ interests, avoiding retrospective claims that lack contractual basis.