Wakilii

Okumu and 7 Others v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited and 6 Others (Civil Appeal 18 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 32 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal from the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the High Court's striking out of a suit on preliminary objections
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the striking out of HCCS No. 49 of 2014 upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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

The Supreme Court dismissed a second appeal arising from the striking out of a fresh suit by former Uganda Electricity Board employees seeking to set aside a judgment on admission, post-judgment compromise and consent taxation order made in earlier representative suits. The Court held that the suit was incompetent because determining it would condemn the Attorney General and 1,500 represented workers unheard, contrary to Articles 28 and 44 of the Constitution; that it offended res judicata since it revolved around the same terminal-benefits claim already decided; and that appellants who consented to representative actions are bound by the resulting orders and lack locus standi to challenge them. A fresh plaint was also the wrong procedure; the remedies were appeal or review.

Facts

The appellants and the 5th to 7th respondents were former employees of the defunct Uganda Electricity Board and its successor companies whose employment was terminated and who, with about 1,500 others, sought payment of terminal benefits. The 5th to 7th respondents and another were granted leave to file representative suits on behalf of the former employees and instructed the 4th respondent's firm to prosecute them. The consolidated suits resulted in a judgment on admission for about UGX 47 billion, a post-judgment compromise, and a consent taxation order, with payments made through the official receiver after deducting the lawyers' fees. The Attorney General had undertaken to pay the dues and largely did so. The appellants then filed HCCS No. 49 of 2014 in their individual capacity seeking to set aside parts of the judgment on admission, the compromise and the consent taxation order, principally the deduction of advocates' fees from their terminal benefits. The High Court upheld preliminary objections and struck out the suit; the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit was rightly struck out for non-joinder of the Attorney General and the 1,500 other represented former workers as parties.
  2. Whether the suit (HCCS No. 49 of 2014) was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
  3. Whether the appellants, having been represented in earlier representative suits, had locus standi to file a fresh suit in their individual capacity to set aside the resulting judgment, compromise and consent orders.
  4. Whether a fresh suit by way of plaint was the correct procedure for challenging a judgment on admission, a post-judgment compromise and a consent taxation order.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents in the Supreme Court and in the courts below.
  • The order striking out H.C.C.S. No. 49 of 2014 is upheld.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Parties — Non-joinder — Necessary parties whose absence renders a suit incompetent
Where a suit cannot be determined without affecting the rights of persons not before the court, the matter is not a mere case of non-joinder curable under Order 1 rules 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules; a necessary party is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed, and the suit is liable to be dismissed where such a party is omitted.
Constitutional Law — Right to be Heard — Audi alteram partem — Articles 28 and 44 of the Constitution
A suit cannot be maintained where its determination would condemn unheard persons who are not parties; the right to be heard under Articles 28 and 44 of the Constitution is fundamental and non-derogable and prevails over the procedural latitude in Order 1 rules 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Section 7 Civil Procedure Act — Effect of adding a new party
A suit offends res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act where the matter directly and substantially in issue was finally decided between the same parties in a competent court; the mere cosmetic addition of a new party to a subsequent suit does not defeat the doctrine where the subject of litigation is unchanged.
Civil Procedure — Representative Suits — Order 1 rule 8 — Binding effect on represented persons and locus standi
Unless the court orders otherwise, any judgment or order made in a representative action under Order 1 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules binds all persons represented; an individual litigant who consented to the representative action has no locus standi to file a fresh suit challenging the validity or binding nature of the resulting judgment.
Civil Procedure — Approbation and Reprobation — Estoppel against taking and disclaiming a benefit
A party who takes a benefit under a judgment or instrument cannot, in the same breath, disclaim the liabilities imposed by it; beneficiaries of a representative judgment cannot accept the award of terminal benefits while rejecting the part of the same judgment ordering deduction of the lawyers' fees.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Court Orders — Proper procedure for challenging a judgment on admission, compromise and consent taxation order
A judgment on admission, a court-endorsed post-judgment compromise, and a consent taxation order are challengeable only by the procedures laid down in law — appeal under section 66 or review under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act, and, for a Registrar's order, appeal by motion under Order 50 rule 8 — and not by filing a fresh suit, which amounts to a disguised appeal.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.7
  • Civil Procedure Act s.7 Explanation 6
  • Civil Procedure Act s.66
  • Civil Procedure Act s.83
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 r.6
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 r.8
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 r.9
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 r.10(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 r.13
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 r.8
  • Civil Procedure Rules r.46
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 44

Cases cited (19)

  • Mohan Musisi Kiwanuka v Asa Chandra (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty Bakireke (Election Petition Appeal No. 04 of 2009)
  • Sujata Gandhi vs. SB Gandhi, Appeal No. 1079 of 2019
  • Allah Ditta Qureshi vs. Patel, [1951] 18 EACA
  • Ismail Surander Hirani v Noorali Esmail Karimo (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1952)
  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and 3 others vs. Eric Tibebaga
  • Shell (U) Ltd v Muwema Mugerwa & Co. Advocates & Another (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2013)
  • Ladak Abdullah Mohammed Hussein v Griffith Isingoma Kakiiza (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
  • All Sisters Company Ltd vs. Guangzhou Tiger Head Battery Group Company Ltd, HCMA No. 807 of 2011
  • Executive Director, NEMA v Solid State Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2015)
  • Kifamunte vs. Uganda, [1999] 2 EA 127
  • Mashukar & Anor v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
  • Lotta vs. Tanaki, [2003] 2 EA 556
  • K.S. Varghese & others vs. St. Peters & St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church and others (2017) 15 SCC 333
  • R. Venugopala Naidu & Ors. vs. Venkataraylu Naidu Charities & Ors. (1989) Supp 2 SCC 356
  • Fr. Isaac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa v St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 7115-7116 of 2019
  • Saroj Gandesha v Transroad Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2009)
  • Jasper Mageku & 198 others v Attorney General and others, HCMA 618 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.