Principle(s):
The Court has no mandate to speculate an advocate’s future professional misconduct and purport to set a punishment for it based on previous misconduct.
An advocate is specifically prohibited from acquiring any interest in the subject matter of a suit /An advocate has no right to retain the decretal sum as it belongs to the client.
An advocate may take security for costs from their client before a contentious action is instituted.
An advocate has no business bringing a matter for recovery of his/her costs to the constitutional court for constitutional interpretation.
The equitable remedy of an advocate’s lien on a decretal sum may not apply in Uganda’s jurisdiction.
Brief facts:
The facts before the court are that the petitioner was arraigned before the Uganda Law counsel (Disciplinary Committee) for wrongly holding onto Mr. Tumwine’s money that he had on the latter’s instructions, received from a defendant in a suit. The committee sat and allowed both parties to present their case. The committee’s decision was that the petitioner as the advocate could only retain Shs. 3,100,000/= out of the sum received and he was ordered to pay to Mr. Tumwine Shs. 59,900,000/=.
On appeal, the panel of Judges of the High Court considered that the committee had properly evaluated the evidence before it. It was then held on appeal that the petitioner could only retain Shs. 3,100,000/= for which he had a taxed bill. They agreed with the committee’s finding that his conduct was unbecoming of an advocate and thereby amounted to professional misconduct. The committee’s orders that the petitioner refunds Shs. 59,900,000/= with interest payment of Tumwine’s costs in the sum of Shs. 1,000,000/= and the committee costs of Shs. 1,500,000/= were sustained. The committee’s order suspending the petitioner for a period of 16 months was also upheld. The High Court further ordered that committee disbars the petitioner and have his name struck off from the roll for good in the event that he appears before it on cases involving client’s money.
The petitioner alleged that the aforementioned judgment was inconsistent with and in contravention of the constitution and this petitioned this court for orders among which included;
- The act of ordering the petitioner to remit to the 3rd respondent Ugx. 59,900,000/= yet he had a lien on the same for unpaid legal services rendered to the 3rd respondent by the petitioner is inconsistent with and/or in contravention of Articles 26, 28, 42 and 44(c) of the Constitution.
- The act of speculating the petitioner’s involvement in future acts of professional misconduct and to direct the law council to impose punishment on the appellant if within 5 years he appeared before the committee for any disciplinary action of professional misconduct involving client’s money is an act of interference with the dispensation of justice by the law council and thus is inconsistent with and/or in contravention of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of state policy and the Constitution.
Holding:
Having found that the petitioner has no property rights in the money recovered other than his duly taxed professional fees, a claim under Article 26(1) would not be sustainable. Similarly, his right to practice his profession under Article 40 (2) would not be negated by the order to return the money that did not belong to him.
The Court held that this order prescribing prospective punishment for future misbehavior was in contravention of Articles 2(2), 28(1), 42 and 44(c) of the constitution.
Issue 3 – Court held that it would be interference with the independence of the committee for the High Court to prescribe prospective punishment for future conduct.
