High Court Reaffirms Legal Principle: Donee of Power of Attorney Acts as Agent of Donor (Principal) in Ms Kimanje Nsibambi Advocates v Tamale and Another.

Overview. The High Court has reaffirmed the established legal principle that a Donee of a Power of Attorney is the Agent of the Donor (Principal).

Therefore, by granting the Power of Attorney to Mrs. Resty Nakayenga Kiguli and Mr. Moses Mpanga, the Tamales appointed them as their Agents for the specified properties.

As stated in the Power of Attorney, all actions taken by the Agents were on behalf of the Tamales and in their names, until the Power of Attorney was revoked on July 2nd, 2018. After carefully reviewing all affidavits and attachments, court found that the Tamales, through their Agents, indeed instructed the Firm to perform legal work related to the property located in Kyadondo Block 243 Plot 1348 at Luzira, Nakawa Division. Legal Representation

Mr. Wandera Moses for the Applicant.

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

Brief Facts

M/s Kimanje Nsibambi Advocates (the Firm) applied for a court order to tax their advocate-client bill of costs against Tamale Rose and Tamale Moses Kawombe (the Tamales). The Firm claimed that they provided legal services to the Tamales under a Power of Attorney dated June 13, 2016, and are entitled to 10% of the value of the land comprised in Kyadondo Block 243 Plot 1348 at Luzira, Nakawa Division.

The Tamales opposed the application, stating that the Bill of costs was defective and barred by law. They also claimed that no client-advocate relationship exists between them and the Firm, and that they never instructed or engaged the Firm to render legal services.

The Tamales further argued that the Power of Attorney was prepared by the Firm without their involvement and was revoked on July 24, 2018, before any instructions were carried out. They also claimed that any claim for remuneration by the Firm is unfounded.

Issues The Firm (M/s Kimanje Nsibambi Advocates) applied for a court order to tax their advocate-client bill of costs against the Tamales (Tamale Rose and Tamale Moses Kawombe). The Tamales opposed the application, stating that the Firm had no authority to act on their behalf and that the Power of Attorney was revoked in July 2018.

The court ruled that the Power of Attorney was not an agreement between the Donors (Tamales) and the Firm, but rather appointed Mrs. Resty Nakayenga Kiguli and Mr. Moses Mpanga as agents of the Tamales. The court found that the Tamales did instruct the Firm to carry out legal work on their behalf, but the Firm's claim for payment is not enforceable under section 48 of the Act. Opinion of the Court The court was to determine whether the Firm (M/s Kimanje Nsibambi Advocates) has demonstrated that the Tamales (Tamale Rose and Tamale Moses Kawombe) retained or employed them and are liable to pay costs for legal work done under their instructions.

The Firm argued that the Power of Attorney granted by the Tamales to Mrs. Resty Nakayenga Kiguli and Mr. Moses Mpanga includes the Firm as an agent to execute instructions regarding the property comprised in Kyadondo Block 243 Plot 1348 at Luzira, Nakawa Division.

The Tamales argued that the Firm failed to demonstrate an advocate-client relationship existed between them and therefore the Bill of costs is unfounded.

The court found that the Power of Attorney makes Mrs. Nakayenga and Mr. Mpanga agents of the Tamales, and through them, the Tamales instructed the Firm to carry out legal work on their behalf. Therefore, the Firm is entitled to costs for the legal work done.

The court's decision hinges on the interpretation of the Power of Attorney and the Advocate's Act, which defines "costs" as fees, charges, disbursements, expenses, and remuneration. Find this case https://ulii.org/akn/ug/judgment/ughcld/2024/168/eng@2024-06-24