Wakilii

Batale v Makerere University (Labour Dispute Reference No. 123 of 2018)

Industrial Court · [2021] UGIC 29 · 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 claim for non-prosecution
Decision
Application to set aside dismissal refused; underlying labour dispute claim 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 an application to set aside the dismissal of a labour dispute claim for non-prosecution. The court held that where a litigant contributes to the negligence or omission of his advocates through dilatory conduct, the principle that an advocate's errors should not be visited upon the client does not apply. The applicant's repeated requests for adjournments to settle out of court, followed by absence on hearing dates and a delay of one and a half years in filing the reinstatement application, constituted dilatory conduct that disentitled him to the court's discretion to reinstate the claim.

Outcome

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

Facts

The claimant lodged a complaint with the Labour Officer on 1 February 2016 alleging that Makerere University had used a wrong formula to calculate his terminal benefits, paying him UGX 21,819,785 instead of the UGX 66,287,160 he claimed. The matter was referred to the Industrial Court on 16 June 2016. From 31 July 2017 onwards, the parties repeatedly sought adjournments to settle the matter out of court. On 4 April 2018, the claimant informed the court that settlement had failed and he would prosecute the claim, but on subsequent hearing dates he and his counsel were not ready to proceed and continued seeking time for amicable resolution. On 11 July 2018 and 20 August 2018, neither the claimant nor his counsel appeared. The matter was dismissed on 20 August 2018. The claimant filed this application to set aside the dismissal on 17 March 2020, one and a half years after dismissal. The respondent had paid the claimant's terminal benefits on 30 June 2017.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had sufficient cause for non-attendance at the hearing that led to dismissal of his claim.
  2. Whether the negligence of the applicant's advocate should be visited upon the applicant.
  3. Whether the applicant's conduct amounted to dilatory conduct disentitling him to reinstatement of the dismissed claim.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Dismissal — Sufficient Cause — Burden of Proof
To succeed in an application to set aside dismissal of a suit for non-prosecution under Order 9 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant must satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause for his or her non-appearance at the hearing.
Civil Procedure — Advocate's Negligence — Dilatory Conduct — Exceptions to Non-Visitation Principle
Where a litigant contributes towards the negligence, omission, or error of his advocates amounting to dilatory conduct on his part, the principle that an advocate's errors should not be visited upon the client does not apply, and the court may refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the litigant.
Civil Procedure — Dilatory Conduct — Repeated Adjournments — Effect on Reinstatement
Repeated requests for adjournments to settle a matter out of court, followed by failure to prosecute when settlement fails and absence on hearing dates, constitutes dilatory conduct that disentitles an applicant to reinstatement of a dismissed claim.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Dismissal — Delay in Filing Application — Reasonable Time
Failure to file an application to set aside dismissal within a reasonable time, in the absence of evidence supporting the reason for delay, is a factor unfavourable to the exercise of the court's discretion to reinstate the claim.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Viran & Another (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • CHRISTINE NAMATOVU TEBEJUKIRA 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. 041 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_Reference_No._123_of_2018)_[2021]_UGIC_29_(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.