High Court rejects bid to disqualify lawyer in Mawogola North election petition
Justice Thomas Ocaya dismissed the application filed by Jet John Tumwebaze, who had alleged that lawyer Paul Kuteesa had previously represented him and was privy to confidential information relating to his case in which he is challenging Aine’s election.
The judge found that Tumwebaze had failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had instructed Kuteesa or that confidential information had been passed to him. (File photo)
________________
The High Court in Masaka has dismissed an application seeking to disqualify a lawyer and his law firm from representing Mawogola North MP-elect Godfrey Kaguta Aine in an election petition.
Justice Thomas Ocaya dismissed the application filed by Jet John Tumwebaze, who had alleged that lawyer Paul Kuteesa had previously represented him and was privy to confidential information relating to his case in which he is challenging Aine’s election.
The judge found that Tumwebaze had failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had instructed Kuteesa or that confidential information had been passed to him.
The application had sought orders restraining Kuteesa and Arcadia Advocates from acting, appearing or advising Aine in the election petition on grounds of alleged conflict of interest.
Tumwebaze is the petitioner in Election Petition Number 10 of 2026, in which he is challenging Aine's election as Member of Parliament for Mawogola North Constituency following the January 15, 2026 election.
Tumwebaze was the runner-up.
Tumwebaze told court that Kuteesa had acted as his lawyer during his candidature and campaign and that he had consulted him about his intended election petition.
According to Tumwebaze, he had disclosed to Kuteesa the proposed grounds of the petition, evidence, potential witnesses, reliefs sought and litigation strategy.
Tumwebaze further alleged that in March 2026, he met Kuteesa and another lawyer, Frank Kanduho, and they discussed the proposed petition and agreed that Kampala Associated Advocates would prepare a working draft for their review.
He claimed that Kuteesa later reminded him by telephone to send the draft petition because time for filing the case was running out.
Tumwebaze said his colleague, Raymond Mwebesa, subsequently emailed the draft petition to Kuteesa and Kanduho on March 19, 2026.
However, Kuteesa denied ever representing Tumwebaze, saying they were only professional colleagues and acquaintances.
He told court that Tumwebaze had never instructed him, paid him legal fees or retained him in relation to his candidature or intended election petition.
Kuteesa also said Tumwebaze was aware that he had previously represented Aine in an election dispute arising from the 2021 elections.
According to Kuteesa, when Tumwebaze informed him in February or March 2026 that he intended to challenge Aine’s election, he told him that he would act for Aine and suggested that he (Tumwebaze) engages Kanduho instead.
Kuteesa also denied receiving the draft petition, saying the email sent to his personal email address was unsolicited and that he did not use that address for legal work.
Arcadia Advocates also denied ever acting for Tumwebaze or receiving confidential information from him.
Justice Ocaya said the law requires an applicant seeking to prevent an advocate from acting against a former client to establish that the advocate accepted instructions; that the matter involved a former client and that the advocate, as a result of acting for that client, was aware of facts that could prejudice the client.
The judge noted that an advocate-client relationship can be established orally or in writing and may be demonstrated through work done on instructions, payment of fees, opening of a file, correspondence, conduct or other evidence.
However, the judge said the burden of proving the relationship rested on Tumwebaze.
Justice Ocaya said Tumwebaze had referred to several law firms that acted for him during the electoral process, but Arcadia Advocates and Kuteesa were not mentioned in the correspondence attached to his application.
The judge said Tumwebaze had also failed to provide sufficient corroboration of his alleged telephone conversations and meetings with Kuteesa.
The judge also noted that Tumwebaze had not provided an engagement letter or other documents showing that Kuteesa had been retained to represent him.
Justice Ocaya further observed that although Tumwebaze claimed that Kuteesa had agreed to work with Kanduho, documents from Kanduho did not mention Kuteesa or indicate that they were acting jointly.
The judge said Kuteesa’s unchallenged evidence that he had previously represented Aine made it more likely that he had informed Tumwebaze that he intended to act for Aine.
“In my view, the evidence established by the applicant is insufficient to support the contention that he instructed the respondents to act for him,” Justice Ocaya ruled.
The judge also found insufficient evidence that Tumwebaze had passed confidential information to Kuteesa.
He further noted that Tumwebaze filed the election petition on March 30, 2026, and later filed a rejoinder after discovering that Kuteesa and Arcadia Advocates were representing Aine.
However, the judge said Tumwebaze did not raise the alleged conflict in the rejoinder or through any other correspondence at the time.
The application was filed on September 14, 2026, a day before the pre-hearing scheduling session.
The judge said the delay in raising the issue either suggested that the grounds of the application were unmerited or that the alleged conflict had been waived.
The court, therefore, dismissed the application.
However, Justice Ocaya declined to award costs against Tumwebaze, noting that he and Kuteesa were professional colleagues and former classmates.
The judge said an award of costs could impair their professional relationship and instead ordered that each party bears its own costs.