Arusha. The High Court, Mwanza Sub-Registry, has dismissed an application by Advocate Reagan Charles seeking to enforce an alleged oral payment agreement against his client, Kamugisha Byabato, following a dispute over legal fees.
In review application number 66878/2025, the advocate and his client differed on the terms allegedly agreed upon during the course of the legal engagement.
According to the applicant, the parties had agreed on a fee of Sh2.4 million, while the respondent insisted the agreed amount was Sh1.5 million.
The disagreement prompted the advocate to institute proceedings before the Resident Magistrate’s Court in Mwanza to enforce the purported oral agreement.
Among other prayers, he asked the court to compel his client to pay what he claimed was the agreed sum.
However, after hearing both parties, the Resident Magistrate’s Court found the application devoid of merit, ruling that the applicant had failed to establish the existence of a definite agreement on the amount payable as alleged.
The ruling dismissing the application was delivered on Monday, May 4, 2026, by High Court Judge Stanley Kamana, who heard the review after the advocate challenged the decision of the lower court.
In his ruling, Judge Kamana noted that the record showed no dispute that Advocate Charles had provided legal services to Mr Byabato under an oral arrangement.
However, he observed that the dispute arose from differing interpretations of the agreed fee.
During the hearing of the review, the Court directed both parties to confine their submissions to the key issue, whether an oral agreement on legal fees is enforceable under Tanzanian law.
In his analysis, Judge Kamana referred to the Advocates Remuneration Order of 2015 and Section 63 of the Advocates Act, Chapter 341 (Revised Edition, 2023), which requires that agreements on legal fees between an advocate and a client must be in writing.
He explained that the legal requirement is intended to promote transparency, certainty, and protection for both parties, and to prevent disputes arising from informal or undocumented arrangements.
The Court also cited an earlier authority in the 1964 case of “Re Taxation of Costs, Re An Advocate,” in which it was held that oral agreements on legal fees lack legal force and are therefore unenforceable.
Guided by those principles, the High Court concurred with the findings of the Resident Magistrate’s Court, while further clarifying that even if the alleged oral agreement had been proved, it would still be unenforceable for want of a written record.
“Oral payment agreements are unenforceable under the existing legal provisions,” Judge Kamana emphasised in his ruling.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the review application filed by the advocate, with no order as to costs.
The Court maintained that each party would bear its own costs of the proceedings.
The application had been filed under the Advocates Remuneration Order of 2015, particularly Rule 5(1), (2) and 3(a), which outline the framework governing enforcement of fee agreements between advocates and their clients.
