Wakilii

Ateker v Uganda Railways Workers Union & Another (Civil Appeal 8 of 1985)

Court of Appeal · [1986] UGCA 22 · 1986 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court order striking out the plaintiff's suit against the second and third defendants for want of a cause of action
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the striking out of the suit against both respondents upheld

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 Court of Appeal held that an order made under Order 6 rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules is appealable as of right, so the preliminary objection failed. On the merits, section 19(1)(b) of the Trade Unions Decree barred any suit against the registered first respondent union in respect of a tortious (defamatory) act committed by its officer on its behalf. Section 42 of the Interpretation Decree did not conflict with the later, specific trade-union immunity. The Corporation, being a separate legal entity that neither published nor authorised the letter, could not be vicariously liable. The trial judge rightly struck out the suit against both respondents. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the striking out of the suit against both respondents upheld

Facts

The appellant was at the material time Managing Director of the Uganda Railways Corporation (third defendant). Mr. Katabulingi was the National General Secretary of the Uganda Railways Workers Union (first respondent), a separate legal entity, to which he had been seconded by the Corporation. In September 1984 Katabulingi wrote and published a letter, headed as a threat to kill officials during an illegal strike, which was defamatory of the appellant and was distributed to various persons. He signed it in his capacity as National General Secretary of the union. The appellant sued Katabulingi, the union and the Corporation, alleging the union and Corporation were vicariously liable. The trial judge found Katabulingi wrote the letter solely as a union official, held the union immune under section 19(1)(b) of the Trade Unions Decree, found the Corporation had not published the letter (being only the recipient), and struck out the suit against the union and the Corporation while ordering the case against Katabulingi to proceed.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal against an order striking out a suit under Order 6 rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules lies as of right.
  2. Whether section 19(1)(b) of the Trade Unions Decree bars a suit against a registered trade union in respect of a tortious act committed by its officer on its behalf.
  3. Whether section 42 of the Interpretation Decree preserved the appellant's right to sue the trade union notwithstanding section 19(1)(b) of the Trade Unions Decree.
  4. Whether the Uganda Railways Corporation could be held vicariously liable for the defamatory letter written by a trade union official.
  5. Whether the trial judge was right to strike out the suit without hearing evidence.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Cross-appeal by Katabulingi dismissed, without costs to the respondents.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents in this court and in the lower court.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Order striking out pleadings under O.6 r.29 CPR — Appealable as of right
An order made in pursuance of Order 6 rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules is appealable as of right, and such an order must be distinguished from a ruling under Order 6 rule 27 which merely provides for points of law to be raised by the pleadings.
Trade Unions — Immunity from suit — Tortious acts committed by an officer on the union's behalf
Section 19(1)(b) of the Trade Unions Decree bars any suit against a registered trade union or its officer in respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of the union, so no cause of action lies against a registered union where its officer published a defamatory letter on its behalf.
Trade Unions — Loss of immunity — Acts outside legitimate functions
A trade union may be liable for tortious acts where it is proved to have acted outside its legitimate functions; preventing illegal strikes and protecting the lives of union officials are legitimate functions of a trade union.
Statutory Interpretation — Later specific enactment prevailing — Interpretation Decree s.42 and Trade Unions Decree s.19(1)(b)
Section 42 of the Interpretation Decree, which saves the rights of other persons against benefited bodies, does not conflict with the later, specific immunity conferred on registered trade unions by section 19(1)(b) of the Trade Unions Decree, and the specific subsequent legislation prevails.
Vicarious Liability — Separate legal entities — Employer not liable for act of independent body — Defamation
A corporation cannot be held vicariously liable for a defamatory letter written and published by an official of a separate legal entity, such as a trade union, where the corporation neither published nor authorised the publication and was merely the recipient of the letter.
Civil Procedure — Striking out — Determination of a question of law without hearing evidence
Where whether a party may be sued is a pure question of law, it is not necessary for the trial judge to hear all the evidence before determining that question, and a suit disclosing no cause of action may properly be struck out at that stage.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Trade Unions Decree (No. 20 of 1976) s.19(1)(b)
  • Interpretation Decree (No. 18 of 1976) s.42
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.27
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.29
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.40
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 92(1)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 80
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 101(b)

Cases cited (2)

  • Vacher and Sons Ltd v London Society of Compositors [1912] 3 KB 547
  • J.T. Stratford & Son Ltd v Lindley [1965] AC 269

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Ateker v Uganda Railways Workers Union & Another (Civil Appeal 8 of 1985) [1986] UGCA 22 (12 December 1986)
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.