Wakilii

Batale v Makerere University Kampala (Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2023)

Industrial Court · [2023] UGIC 26 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Industrial Court's decision declining to reinstate Labour Dispute Reference No. 123 of 2016
Decision
Applicant granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and extension of time to file application for leave to appeal

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 Industrial Court granted the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision dismissing an application to set aside an order. The court held that counsel's negligence should not be visited upon the client, and that the applicant had demonstrated a point of law with prospects of success. The court also granted an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal, finding that the applicant had duly instructed counsel who failed to diligently pursue the necessary applications. The underlying labour dispute had not been heard on its merits, and fairness and equity required that leave be granted.

Outcome

Applicant granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and extension of time to file application for leave to appeal

Facts

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Industrial Court's decision of 17 September 2021 dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 049 of 2020, which had sought to set aside an order dismissing Labour Dispute Reference No. 123 of 2016. The underlying labour dispute had been dismissed for non-appearance of counsel. The applicant's advocates filed a notice of appeal on 13 October 2021 but did not diligently pursue the necessary applications. The applicant produced receipts showing payments to advocates from October 2021 onwards, including for transport to the Court of Appeal. The applicant concurrently filed Miscellaneous Application No. 007 of 2023 seeking leave to apply for leave to appeal out of time. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had not demonstrated a point of law or jurisdictional question and was guilty of dilatory conduct.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the Applicant should be granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal out of time.
  3. Whether the negligence of counsel should be visited upon the client so as to deny leave to appeal.

Orders

  • Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 007 of 2023 is allowed.
  • The Applicant is granted leave to apply for leave to appeal out of time.
  • The Applicant is hereby granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the Industrial Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 49 of 2020 dated the 17th of September 2021.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Test for Grant of Leave
Leave to appeal will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration, and where there is a real prospect of success that is realistic rather than fanciful.
Civil Procedure — Counsel Negligence — Effect on Client — Apportionment of Blame
A litigant's right to a fair hearing should not be defeated on the ground of his or her lawyer's mistakes. The negligence of counsel should not be visited upon the client, particularly where the client has shown diligence in instructing counsel and the matter has not been heard on its merits.
Employment & Labour — Industrial Court — Appeals — Grounds for Appeal
Under Section 22 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act 2006, an appeal lies from a decision of the Industrial Court to the Court of Appeal only on a point of law or to determine whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction over the matter.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Discretion of Court — Counsel Negligence
Where an applicant has duly instructed counsel who did not diligently file or pursue necessary applications, the court may exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time to deal effectively with the substantive question, particularly where the applicant makes an arguable and objective case for the extension.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Fairness and Equity — Merits Not Heard
Fairness and equity are considerations for the grant of leave to appeal. Where the main cause has not been heard on its merits, the interests of justice favour granting leave to appeal.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (18)

  • Re: Christine Mary Tebajukira
  • Lubanga Jamada v Dr. Ddumba Edward (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2011)
  • Kisambira Masaba v Makerere University (Labour Dispute Complaint No. 013 of 2014)
  • Sango Bay Estates v Dresdner Bank [1973] EA 17
  • Management Committee of Rubaga Girls School v Dr. Bwogi Kanyerezi [1998-2000] HCB 40
  • Musa Sbeity and Another v Joan Akello (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2018)
  • Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91
  • SCCA No. 14 of 2001
  • Joel Kato and Another v Nuulu Nalwoga (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 04 of 2012)
  • Banco Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Re Helsby (1894) IQB 742
  • Coles v Ravenshear (1907) 1KB 1
  • Baker v Faber (1908) WN
  • Kevorkian v Burnev (1937) All ER 97
  • Gatti v Shoosmith (1939) 3 All ER 916
  • Hajji Nurdin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)
  • Alexander Jo Okello v Kavondo & Co. Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 1996)
  • Joseph Kalule v GIZ (Labour Dispute Reference No. 109 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Batale_v_Makerere_University_Kampala_(Miscellaneous_Application_4_of_2023)_[2023]_UGIC_26_(29_August_2023)
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.