By Ezrah Kashuumbusha.
KAMPALA, March 26, 2024 | The Constitutional Court has confirmed a decision ordering renown Kampala based Lawyer Geoffrey Nangumya to refund Shs 59.9 million to his client. Justices Fredrick Engonda-Ntende, Monica Mugenyi, Eva Luswata, Oscar Kihika, and Catherine Bamugemereire confirmed the verdict initially issued by the High Court in June 2020.
The case stems from a disagreement between Nangumya and his client, Mr. Emmy Tumwine, over funds related to a failed land transaction. Tumwine engaged Nangumya to recover funds after purchasing land for Shs 76 million, paying Shs 50 million upfront. Nangumya filed a suit to recover the Ugx 50,000,000 with interest and damages, but mid-way Tumwine withdrew instructions and hired new lawyers. These lawyers discovered that Nangumya had already received Shs. 63 million as full settlement. Nangumya admitted receiving the sum but claimed it was held to cover outstanding legal fees. Tumwine, unaware of the payments, filed a complaint with the Law Council’s Disciplinary Committee.
Subsequently, the Law Council found Nangumya guilty of professional misconduct, ordering him to refund Ugx 59,900,000 to Tumwine, representing the excess amount beyond his entitled professional fees. Additionally, he received a two-year suspension from legal practice. Nangumya appealed the decision, but the High Court upheld the ruling
Despite Nangumya’s further petition to the Constitutional Court, the justices ruled in favor of Tumwine and the High Court’s decision. Justice Luswata, in her lead judgment, emphasized that Nangumya’s right to practice law under Article 40(2) was not negated by the order to refund the money, as it did not rightfully belong to him.
“Having found he has no property rights in the money recovered other than his duly taxed professional fees, a claim under Article 26(1) would be unsustainable,” Justice Luswata stated, highlighting the reasoning behind the court’s decision.
While the Constitutional Court upheld the order for the lawyer to refund the money, it also deemed unconstitutional the High Court’s decision regarding the lawyer’s potential future disciplinary action. The High Court’s ruling, which suggested disbarment for any future misconduct within five years, was considered unfair and against Article 28(1) of the Constitution. Justice Luswata stated that this would constitute a prospective punishment for future behavior, violating Article 28(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair, speedy, and public hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal.
The judgment emphasizes the critical significance of maintaining professional ethics within the legal profession and ensuring accountability in the relationships between clients and lawyers. It illuminates the essential responsibilities that legal practitioners bear in fulfilling their professional duties.
