The Supreme Court has said it lacks the jurisdiction to hear an application by the law firm Matovu & Matovu Advocates, which is seeking Shs 64 billion in legal fees for successfully representing 1,600 workers of Uganda Telecom and Post Bank who were demanding gratuity and pension after being laid off.
The law firm, which is managed by John Matovu, a former president of the Uganda Law Society, had sought 20% of the total Shs 320 billion court award, which was allocated to cover legal fees and costs, from the pension payouts for the former telecom employees.
This included claims for services over two decades. In a previous ruling, the Court of Appeal had capped the legal fees at Shs5.6 billion, but the law firm wanted more and went to the Supreme Court.
The dispute centered on whether this 20% should be deducted before direct payments to beneficiaries, amid challenges over the agreement’s validity.
The decision, delivered by Justice Christopher Madrama Izama on 26 September 2025, hands a brief victory to two former telecom workers, Bernard Mweteise and Chris Abel Nkunzingoma, who had opposed their lawyers’ attempt to withhold part of their pension payouts.
The ruling could pave the way for direct payments to hundreds of retirees, potentially ending years of delays.
The dispute traces back to 2003, when over 1,600 former employees of Uganda Telecom Limited (UTL), Uganda Posts Limited (UPL), Uganda Communications Commission (UCC), and Post Bank Limited (PBL) filed a class-action lawsuit in the High Court.
Represented by Matovu & Matovu Advocates, the workers claimed they were entitled to pension arrears, gratuity, and general damages based on their original employment contracts.
The High Court ruled in their favour, awarding pensions calculated under the old terms, plus damages and interest. UTL and UPL appealed to the Court of Appeal but lost. No further appeal was made to the Supreme Court on the main judgment, making the award final.
The government was ordered to pay Shs 320 billion as computed by the Auditor General. However, tensions arose when Matovu & Matovu demanded 20% of the payouts as legal fees, citing alleged agreements with clients. Many beneficiaries, including Mweteise and Nkunzingoma, disputed this, arguing there was no valid fee agreement and that payments should go directly to them.
The firm also sought court orders to route all funds through their accounts (80% to clients, 20% retained), while Mweteise and Nkunzingoma wanted the government to pay beneficiaries directly to avoid deductions.
Court orders Libyan firm to pay KSMO Advocates Shs 729 million for legal services
Matovu & Matovu Advocates took the matter to the Court of Appeal, which initially ruled in their favour in 2023. However, a three-judge panel reviewed and overturned it in July 2025, ordering payments to be held in court until the fee dispute is resolved.
The lawyers then sought the intervention of the Supreme Court.
The key issue was whether the Supreme Court could hear an appeal from execution proceedings in the Court of Appeal, rather than from a High Court original decision. Justice Madrama said the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
He said the Supreme Court only handles second appeals from High Court original judgments, not interlocutory matters like execution disputes from the Court of Appeal. He struck out the applications to prevent “multiplicity of proceedings” and avoid further delays.
The Supreme Court ruling does not change the claimed amount but sends the matter back to the Court of Appeal for resolution.
