Wakilii

Hajjti Ajiri Namagembe and 4 Others v Lukenge (Administrator of the estate of late Hajji Sentumu) (Civil Application No. 165 of 2021)

Court of Appeal · [2021] UGCA 199 · 2021 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice to set aside an order made in Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 and to fix that application for inter partes hearing
Decision
Application allowed; order in Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 vacated and matter to be fixed for inter partes hearing before another single justice

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

A single Justice held that under Rule 57(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, read with the Rule 3(g) definition of "court" which includes a single judge sitting alone, a single Justice has power to vary or rescind an order made on an application to the court, provided sufficient cause is shown. Because Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 had been called for hearing at 9:00am when the applicants had been served for 11:00am, the applicants were denied a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution. This constituted sufficient cause. The court vacated the earlier order and directed that the application be fixed for inter partes hearing before another single Justice.

Facts

Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 was scheduled for hearing on 26 May 2021 at 11:00am. However, the application was called and determined at 9:00am, before the scheduled time. The applicants attended court at 11:00am as per the hearing notice and found that the application had already been called, heard and allowed with costs in their absence. The applicants, who are interested in defending the application on its merits, filed the present application before a single Justice seeking to set aside and vacate the order made in Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 and to have it fixed for an inter partes hearing. The respondent, administrator of the estate of the late Hajji Jaffar Sentamu, opposed the application, contending that the proper remedy was a reference to a bench of three justices, that a single justice lacked jurisdiction, and that the applicants were guilty of dilatory conduct having never filed a reply on record.

Issues

  1. Whether a single Justice of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to vary or rescind an order made on an application heard by a single judge.
  2. Whether the applicants showed sufficient cause to set aside the order made in Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 and have it restored for inter partes hearing.

Orders

  • The order of this court allowing Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 is hereby vacated.
  • Both parties in Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 are directed to file their submissions within 3 days each, starting with the applicants, from the date of delivery of this ruling.
  • The registrar is directed to fix Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 for hearing inter partes before another single justice of this Court.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs of this application.

Key headnotes

Court of Appeal — Powers of a Single Justice — Rescinding or Varying Orders under Rule 57(2)
Under Rule 57(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, read with the Rule 3(g) definition of "court" which expressly includes a single judge exercising power sitting alone, a single Justice of the Court of Appeal has power to vary or rescind an order made on an application to the court where sufficient cause is shown.
Right to a Fair Hearing — Article 28 — Matter Called Before its Scheduled Time
Calling an application for hearing and determining it before the time fixed in the hearing notice, in the absence of a party who attended at the scheduled time, denies that party the right to a fair hearing guaranteed under Article 28 of the Constitution and amounts to sufficient cause to set aside the resulting order.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.43(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.43(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.44
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.57
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.3(g)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.51
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.28
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.129
  • Civil Procedure Act s.9

Cases cited (2)

  • Parimal Vs Veena Civil Appeal No. 1467 of 2011
  • Bitamissi Vs Rwabugunda Misc. Application No. 79 of 2014
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.