Wakilii

Batale v Makerere University (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 49 of 2020)

Industrial Court · [2021] UGIC 110 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside dismissal of labour dispute for non-prosecution
Decision
Application to set aside dismissal refused; underlying labour dispute remains dismissed

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 dismissed the application to set aside the dismissal of the underlying labour dispute. The court held that the applicant exhibited dilatory conduct by repeatedly seeking adjournments for settlement, failing to prosecute the claim when given opportunities, and filing the application 1.5 years after dismissal. The court found that where a litigant contributes to the negligence or omission of his advocates, the principle that an advocate's error should not be visited on the client does not apply.

Outcome

Application to set aside dismissal refused; underlying labour dispute remains dismissed

Facts

The applicant, a former employee of Makerere University, lodged a complaint in February 2016 alleging the respondent used a wrong formula to calculate his terminal benefits. He claimed UGX 66,287,160 but the respondent offered UGX 21,819,785. The matter was referred to the Industrial Court in June 2016. From July 2017 onwards, the parties repeatedly sought adjournments to settle the matter out of court. On 4 April 2018, the applicant informed the court that settlement had failed and he would prosecute the claim. However, on subsequent hearing dates the applicant and his counsel were not ready to proceed and sought further time for amicable resolution. On 11 July 2018 and 20 August 2018, neither the applicant nor his counsel appeared. The matter was dismissed on 20 August 2018. The respondent paid the applicant's terminal benefits on 30 June 2017. The applicant filed this application to set aside the dismissal on 17 March 2020, approximately 1.5 years after dismissal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had sufficient cause for non-attendance at the hearing that led to dismissal of the labour dispute.
  2. Whether the negligence or error of the applicant's advocate should be visited upon the applicant.
  3. Whether the applicant exhibited dilatory conduct that disentitles him to reinstatement of the dismissed suit.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Dismissal — Sufficient Cause — Test for Reinstatement
To succeed in an application to set aside dismissal for non-prosecution under Order 9 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an applicant must satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause for non-attendance at the hearing.
Civil Procedure — Advocate's Negligence — When Not Visited on Client — Dilatory Conduct Exception
Where a litigant contributes towards the negligence or omission or error of his advocates amounting to dilatory conduct on his part, the court may not favour the litigant and the principle that an advocate's error should not be visited on the client will not apply.
Civil Procedure — Dilatory Conduct — Repeated Adjournments and Delayed Application
Repeatedly seeking adjournments for settlement, failing to prosecute a claim when given opportunities, and filing an application to set aside dismissal 1.5 years after the dismissal constitutes dilatory conduct that disentitles an applicant to reinstatement.
Civil Procedure — Sufficient Cause — Financial Inability Not Sufficient
Failure to raise costs of attendance in court or failure to raise legal fees to enable counsel to attend court is not a sufficient reason for non-attendance.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Viran & Another (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • CHRISTINE NAMATOVU TEBEJUK1RA 1992- 93 HCB 985
  • National Insurance Corporation Vs Mugyenyi & Co. Advocates 1987 HCB 28
  • Nakiride Vs Hotel international 1987 HCB 85
  • Securex Agencies (U) Ltd v Odikiria Samuel Baker (Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 2021)
  • Appliance World Limited v Ocho John Micheal (Miscellaneous Application No. 179 of 2018)
  • Captain Phillip Ongoru v Catherine Nyewowota (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Batale_v_Makerere_University_(Labour_Dispute_Miscellaneous_Application_49_of_2020)_[2021]_UGIC_110_(17_September_2021)
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.