Court blocks sh8b payment of city lawyer
Publish Date: Jul 14, 2014
Court blocks sh8b payment of city lawyer
Fred Muwema a senior partner at Muwema and Mugerwa Advocates and Solicitors had claimed 16% of the sh56bn as remuneration for representing the oil companies, in addition to costs.
  • mail
  • img

By Vision Reporter

THE Supreme Court has blocked payment of sh8.9b to a city law firm which wanted to share from the sh56b excise tax refund URA is to give to 10 fuel companies.

Muwema and Mugerwa Advocates and Solicitors had claimed 16% of the sh56bn as remuneration for representing the oil companies, in addition to costs.

Fred Muwema and Kiggundu Mugerwa are the senior partners in the firm.

The Supreme Court ruled the claim illegal and ordered Muwema’s firm to pay costs to the lawyers of the aggrieved oil companies in all the courts the remuneration dispute has been.

The same ruling also dashed the bid by Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) to avoid paying back the wrongly collected taxes to the fuel companies.

The five justices unanimously upheld two High Court rulings on the sh56b tax money and the sh8.9b claim.

Their ruling quashed the one of the Court of Appeal that had faulted the High Court on Muwema’s claim and had ordered the remuneration suit back to the Commercial Court for handling by a fresh judge.

The Justices are Bert Katureebe, Benjamin Odoki, Wilson Tsekooko, Galdino Okello and Christine Kitumba.

The fuel companies ran to the Supreme Court saying Muwema’s sh8.9b remuneration agreement was done with Rock Petroleum behind their back.

The tax, court costs and lawyer remuneration saga started when 10 oil companies dragged URA to court, seeking to recover the excise duty monies. Rock Petroleum engaged Muwema’s firm to sue URA on behalf of all 10.

The other oil companies are Shell, Kobil, Gapco, MGS International, Delta Petroleum, Fuelex, City Oil, Hass Petroluem, Nile Energy and Petrolink. 

Justice Lamek Mukasa in the Commercial Court then ordered URA to pay back over sh56b to the fuel companies.

However, unknown to the other companies in the suit, before the ruling, Muwema had entered another agreement with Rock Petroleum for remuneration.

According to the agreement, he would be paid costs plus 16% of the proceedings from the case. If the case was prolonged by appeals, he would earn another 4%.

The remuneration agreement came to light when Muwema sought to get the sh8.9b from URA and sued the tax body when it opposed it.

The other fuel companies also returned to court challenging the remuneration agreement. 

A court registrar heard both Muwema’s application against URA and the fuel companies’ application against Muwema and Rock on the same day.

She, however, only gave a ruling in Muwema’s case, ordering URA to pay the sh8.9bn.

Days later, she said the oil companies’ application against Muwema had been overtaken by events.

The fuel companies appealed to the High Court, and Justice Irene Mulyagonja handled the case.

However, Muwema tried to block Mulyagonja from handling the case, saying she was biased.

The tiff with Mulyagonja was sparked off when the judge informed Muwema of a complaint lodged by Tumusiime, Kabega and Company Advocates against the registrar over the matter.

Mulyagonja said she would meet the concerned parties that afternoon. Muwema, according to the court records, became angry and complained that the Kabega lawyers were trying to block his pay.

When the judge said she would give an interim order staying execution until the matter was settled, Muwema accused the judge of siding with Tumusiime and Kabega. He appealed to the Court of Appeal.

He and his colleagues also filed a complaint against Mulyagonja before the Principal Judge, saying she had a personal interest in the matter, which was the reason she issued the interim order.

The Supreme Court noted that at some point during the submissions, the application degenerated into a personal affront with Muwema, treating the judge ‘like a criminal or witness under cross examination’.

Referring to the applications in the lower court, the Supreme Court said there was “abuse of court process by some judicial officers and advocates.”

“It is such abuse of the court process that has delayed justice,” the court noted. 

Judgment: Shell vs Muwema & Mugerwa by The New Vision

The statements, comments, or opinions expressed through the use of New Vision Online are those of their respective authors, who are solely responsible for them, and do not necessarily represent the views held by the staff and management of New Vision Online.

New Vision Online reserves the right to moderate, publish or delete a post without warning or consultation with the author.Find out why we moderate comments. For any questions please contact

  • mail
  • img
blog comments powered by Disqus
Also In This Section
Board members of the Uganda Electricity Generation want the contractors of 600mw Sinohydro Karuma Hydro Power Project to put emphasis on the health and safety of workers....
How to add value to Doodo farming
Amaranth is a high nutritional value crop rich in proteins , essential fatty acids and micronutrients....
New Vision to launch digital version
Uganda’s leading daily, the New Vision newspaper, will launch a digital version on Friday, Robert Kabushenga, the Vision Group chief executive officer, has revealed....
AFRICAN countries have vowed to slash down amount of money spent through food imports by strengthening grain trade in the continent...
16 oil companies get bidding documents
The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development has issued the bidding document to 16 qualified companies interested in getting oil exploration licenses in Uganda....
Dollar steady against emerging market currencies
THE dollar faced selling pressure against major currencies but strengthened against most of its Asia-Pacific peers as concerns over emerging economies remained strong...
Should Makerere University fees policy be reviewed?
Can't Say
follow us
subscribe to our news letter