Wakilii

China Railways No. 3 Engineering Company Limited v Muwema and Company Advocates and Solicitors (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 40 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 246 · 2022 Appeal Allowed — Orders Set Aside AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from ex-parte orders of the Deputy Registrar in Misc. Cause No. 138 of 2021 and Misc. Application No. 544 of 2021
Decision
Orders of the Deputy Registrar set aside; matters remitted to the Assistant Registrar for hearing on merit

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 High Court held that an appeal under Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules is the proper avenue where final orders have been made by a registrar, even when those orders span a main cause and an interlocutory application heard on the same day. The court found that the applicant had been served with hearing notices for both matters but failed to appear, and that it could not be determined which matter was heard first. Invoking its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court set aside the ex-parte orders in both matters and directed that they be heard inter-partes on merit given the substantial amounts at stake and a dispute over a key piece of evidence.

Outcome

Orders of the Deputy Registrar set aside; matters remitted to the Assistant Registrar for hearing on merit

Facts

The respondent law firm filed Misc. Cause No. 138 of 2021 on 3 May 2021 seeking leave to tax its advocate-client bill of costs against the applicant company, a Chinese engineering firm operating in Uganda. The applicant filed an affidavit in reply on 4 August 2021 citing lockdown delays, and on the same day filed Misc. Application No. 544 of 2021 seeking to join additional parties to the main cause. Both matters were fixed for hearing on 21 October 2021 at 2:30 pm. Hearing notices were served on the applicant on 19 October 2021, with the notice for the Misc. Cause received under protest pending disposal of the Misc. Application. On 21 October 2021, the applicant did not appear and the Deputy Registrar dismissed the Misc. Application for non-appearance and granted the orders sought in the Misc. Cause. The applicant filed this appeal challenging both orders, contending that it had been under the mistaken belief the matter was before the High Court and awaiting directives, and that the Misc. Cause should not have been determined before the interlocutory application was disposed of on merit.

Issues

  1. Whether it was procedurally correct for the applicant to file one appeal to challenge orders made in two distinct matters (a Miscellaneous Cause and a Miscellaneous Application) heard on the same day.
  2. Whether the Deputy Registrar erred by determining Misc. Cause No. 138 of 2021 before disposing of the interlocutory application (Misc. Application No. 544 of 2021) on merit.
  3. Whether the Deputy Registrar erred by not determining Misc. Application No. 544 of 2021 on merits and failing to accord the applicant a fair hearing.

Orders

  • Ex-parte orders issued in Misc. Cause No. 138 of 2021 by the Deputy Registrar are hereby set aside.
  • Ex-parte orders issued in Misc. Application No. 544 of 2021 by the Deputy Registrar are set aside.
  • Both Misc. Cause No. 138 of 2021 and Misc. Application No. 544 of 2021 shall be heard on merit before the Assistant Registrar.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Scope of Order 50 Rule 8 — Appeal from Registrar's Orders
Where a registrar has made final orders disposing of a matter, an aggrieved party may appeal under Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules to the High Court, and such an appeal is the proper avenue rather than an application under Order 9 Rules 22, 23 or 27, which are only applicable where the main suit is still pending a final decision.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Applications — Preliminary Objection to Consolidated Appeal
It is not irregular for a party to file a single appeal under Order 50 Rule 8 to challenge orders made by a registrar in both a main cause and an interlocutory application arising from that cause, where both matters were heard on the same day and the appeal emanates from the disposal of the main suit.
Civil Procedure — Ex-parte Judgments — Definition and Distinction
An ex-parte judgment is made only where the court has heard from one side alone. Where a respondent has filed an affidavit in reply and that affidavit is on the record, but the respondent fails to file written submissions or appear for a ruling, the judgment is not ex-parte in the strict sense because the court has received input from both sides.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Setting Aside Orders in the Interests of Justice
The High Court may invoke its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside ex-parte orders made by a registrar and direct that matters be heard inter-partes on merit, where strict observance of procedural rules would lead to injustice, especially where substantial amounts are at stake and there is a major dispute over key evidence.
Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Fair Hearing — Liberal Interpretation of Procedural Rules
While rules of court and procedure are made to be obeyed, where strict observance may lead to injustice to any of the parties, the court should adopt a liberal interpretation of the rules in order to do substantial justice and ensure that parties are given a full opportunity to defend matters on merit.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kimala Tonny and Anor v Grace Perpetua Otim (High Court Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2019)
  • Hamam Singh Bhogal T/A Hamam Singh & Co v Jadva Karsan (1953) 20 EACA 17
  • Baku Raphael v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 50

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

China Railways No. 3 Engineering Company Limited v Muwema and Company Advocates and Solicitors (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 40 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 246 (30 November 2022)
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.