High Court stops IG probe against lawyer over UETCL land case
Justice Simon Peter Kinobe ruled that the IG acted outside its mandate in summoning Kanduho to provide information obtained during his professional relationship with his client, Charles Tumwesigye Kahirwa.
lawyer Frank Kanduho Rwabosy, a managing partner at Kanduho & Co Advocates, had filed a judicial review application challenging a witness summons issued to him by the IGG on September 10, 2024. (File photo)
________________
The High Court in Kampala has stopped the Inspectorate of Government (IG) from investigating lawyer Frank Kanduho Rwabosy over information he obtained while representing a client in a land compensation dispute involving Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (UETCL).
Justice Simon Peter Kinobe ruled that the IG acted outside its mandate in summoning Kanduho to provide information obtained during his professional relationship with his client, Charles Tumwesigye Kahirwa.
The judge also found that the inspectorate's investigation appeared to revisit a matter that had already been determined by the High Court in Civil Reference No.24 of 2015 involving UETCL and Kahirwa.
Kanduho, a managing partner at Kanduho & Co Advocates, had filed a judicial review application challenging a witness summons issued to him by the IGG on September 10, 2024.
He argued that the IGG had no powers to investigate him over his professional conduct as an advocate and that any disciplinary action against lawyers falls under the mandate of the Law Council.
He also contended that the IGG was attempting to reopen a land compensation dispute that had already been handled and concluded by the High Court.
The dispute arose from compensation paid to Kahirwa, a Project Affected Person (PAP), after UETCL acquired about 8.6 acres of land for construction of a 220kV transmission line and associated substation.
Kahirwa had sued UETCL in High Court Civil Reference No.24 of 2015, where the court determined the compensation payable after considering payments already made by the company.
The court later issued a garnishee order directing payment of sh1.259 billion, including the decretal sum and costs, to Kahirwa.
The IGG later received a complaint alleging that UETCL had overpaid Kahirwa by about sh288.9 million and launched investigations.
The IGG argued that it was investigating alleged corruption and misuse of public funds and was not reviewing the court’s decision.
Through an affidavit filed by Sarah Birungi, the inspectorate said it had received a complaint that UETCL had overpaid compensation to Kahirwa and that Kanduho was summoned only as a witness to provide information relevant to the inquiry.
The IG maintained that it had constitutional powers under Articles 225 and 226 of the Constitution and the Inspectorate of Government Act, respectively, to investigate corruption-related complaints involving public funds.
Justice Kinobe held that although the IG has powers to investigate corruption, abuse of office and misuse of public funds, those powers are limited by law.
The judge cited Section 18(1)(a) of the Inspectorate of Government Act, which bars the IGG from questioning or reviewing decisions of courts or judicial officers made in execution of their judicial functions.
Justice Kinobe observed that the summons issued to Kanduho indicated that he was required to give evidence regarding “alleged fraud in respect of a land transaction between UETCL and Charles Tumwesigye Kahirwa”.
The judge said the wording of the summons suggested that the IG was investigating a matter that had already been determined by court.
He held that the inspectorate should have clearly specified the scope of the inquiry to avoid the impression that it was revisiting a court decision.
The court found that the High Court had already considered the money paid by UETCL and determined the amount payable to Kahirwa.
The judge also ruled that advocates are protected by client confidentiality.
He relied on Regulation 7 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations, which prohibits advocates from disclosing information obtained from clients except where required by law, necessary in conducting the client’s affairs, or where there is consent.
Kinobe said the IG could investigate private individuals where there is alleged misuse of public funds but cannot compel an advocate to disclose privileged information obtained during representation without a court order or the client’s consent.
“An advocate cannot be summoned to divulge or provide privileged information in the absence of a court order or authorisation from the client."
In his final orders, Kinobe partly allowed Kanduho’s application.
He declared that the IGG acted outside her constitutional and statutory mandate by investigating a matter that had already been concluded by the High Court in Civil Reference No.24 of 2015 involving UETCL and Kahirwa.
The court also declared that the IGG acted outside her powers by summoning Kanduho to provide privileged information obtained in the course of his professional duties as an advocate without the consent of his client or a court order.
Kinobe issued an order of certiorari quashing the witness summons issued to Kanduho by the IG.
The court further issued a permanent injunction restraining the IG and its officers from summoning Kanduho over matters arising from his role as an advocate in Civil Reference No.24 of 2015 and related proceedings, unless authorised by a court order.
The IG was also ordered to pay one-third of the costs of the judicial review application.
“It is so ordered,” ruled Justice Kinobe.