Hajjti Ajiri Namagembe and 4 Others v Lukenge (Administrator of the estate of late Hajji Sentumu) (Civil Application No. 165 of 2021)

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.

Holding

A single Justice held that under Rule 57(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, read with the Rule 3(g) definition of "court" which includes a single judge sitting alone, a single Justice has power to vary or rescind an order made on an application to the court, provided sufficient cause is shown. Because Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 had been called for hearing at 9:00am when the applicants had been served for 11:00am, the applicants were denied a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution. This constituted sufficient cause. The court vacated the earlier order and directed that the application be fixed for inter partes hearing before another single Justice.

Outcome

Application allowed; order in Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 vacated and matter to be fixed for inter partes hearing before another single justice

Facts

Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 was scheduled for hearing on 26 May 2021 at 11:00am. However, the application was called and determined at 9:00am, before the scheduled time. The applicants attended court at 11:00am as per the hearing notice and found that the application had already been called, heard and allowed with costs in their absence. The applicants, who are interested in defending the application on its merits, filed the present application before a single Justice seeking to set aside and vacate the order made in Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 and to have it fixed for an inter partes hearing. The respondent, administrator of the estate of the late Hajji Jaffar Sentamu, opposed the application, contending that the proper remedy was a reference to a bench of three justices, that a single justice lacked jurisdiction, and that the applicants were guilty of dilatory conduct having never filed a reply on record.

Issues

1. Whether a single Justice of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to vary or rescind an order made on an application heard by a single judge.
2. Whether the applicants showed sufficient cause to set aside the order made in Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 and have it restored for inter partes hearing.

Orders

• The order of this court allowing Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 is hereby vacated.
• Both parties in Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 are directed to file their submissions within 3 days each, starting with the applicants, from the date of delivery of this ruling.
• The registrar is directed to fix Civil Application No. 44 of 2021 for hearing inter partes before another single justice of this Court.
• Each party shall bear their own costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.43(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.43(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.44
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.57
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.3(g)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.51
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.28
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.129
• Civil Procedure Act s.9

Cases cited (2)

• Parimal Vs Veena Civil Appeal No. 1467 of 2011
• Bitamissi Vs Rwabugunda Misc. Application No. 79 of 2014

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